Consumer complaint received 2025-10-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Possible Financial Inc
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, Possible Finance , Inc. responded to my prior CFPB complaint ( # XXXX ) by stating there may be " potential fraud associated with my account. I have never alleged identity theft, nor have I filed any police, FTC, or fraud report. The company has never contacted me to verify my identity, supply fraud-alert details, or request documentation to substantiate any such claim. 

Because the potential fraud designation originated internally, this suggests a Possible Finance system or data-integrity breach involving consumer loan records. If the companys data were compromised, federal and state law required it to notify affected consumers, credit bureaus, and regulators. No such notification occurred. The companys response instead appears to be an attempt to avoid its reinvestigation and documentation duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA XXXX ). 

I originally mailed a certified dispute and validation request on XX/XX/XXXX, requesting full documentation of all Possible Finance tradelines reported on my XXXX filecopies of applications, agreements, and payment records. Possible Finance failed to respond or validate, then later inserted a potential fraud note through CFPB, without evidence. 

This false classification has damaged my credit reputation and may conceal a broader data-compromise event. Exhibits A through Q document certified-mail proof, dispute letters, CFPB filings, and declarations showing that I have never been informed of any breach. Exhibit H and Exhibit I contain sworn declarations confirming no notice of any fraud or breach was ever received. 

Experian has continued to publish Possible Finance tradelines as verified despite lacking documentation, violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ). 

XXXX has failed to mark these accounts as consumer disputes this account, violating 623 ( a ) ( 3 ).

XXXX continues to mirror outdated data and has not implemented a data-integrity hold despite receiving notice under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).

If the Potential Fraud Claim Were Legitimate, Possible Finances Furnisher Duties are : Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 6 ) and 12 C.F.R. 1022.42, a furnisher that determines an account may involve identity theft must : Cease reporting the account entirely until it confirms authenticity. 

Notify all CRAs ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that the account is under fraud review. 

Flag the tradeline with a fraud or identity theft indicator in its Metro 2 reporting file ( field 28 Special Comment Code XB, XC, or XN ).

Provide the consumer written notice acknowledging the fraud alert and requesting additional verification ( such as a signed FTC Identity Theft Report or police report ).

Provide full validation if the account is found valid or permanently delete it if fraud is confirmed.

None of the actions took place. This strongly implies that Possibles potential fraud statement was internal misclassification not a true identity theft flag and that the CRAs are treating it as a normal tradeline, not a blocked or suppressed fraud record.

As shown in Exhibits F and L, these failures collectively indicate breakdowns in both furnisher and CRA compliance processes.

If Possible Finances potential fraud classification were legitimate, the company would have been required under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 6 ), 605B, and 12 C.F.R. 1022.4243 to immediately suppress the affected tradelines, flag them as identity-theft accounts using Metro 2 fraud indicators ( XB, XC, or XN ), and notify consumers and credit bureaus in writing. None of these actions occurred. The absence of these safeguards raises the likelihood that Possible Finance is systematically mislabeling unresolved account disputes as fraud to bypass FCRA reinvestigation dutiesa practice the CFPB has warned against in multiple enforcement contexts. In CFPB Supervisory Highlights, Issue 32 ( XXXX XXXX ), the Bureau cited furnishers for false fraud coding patterns that concealed internal data errors and harmed consumers through unwarranted denials of credit. If this behavior extends beyond my account, it may reflect a broader data-integrity failure within Possible Finances consumer-reporting process that threatens the accuracy of national credit files. Such systemic miscoding could impact hundreds or thousands of borrowers, skewing credit scores, suppressing legitimate dispute rights, and violating the CFPBs standards for reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. I urge the Bureau to review this case not as an isolated error but as potential evidence of a wider industry practice requiring supervisory examination and corrective enforcement. 

Because Possible Finance is headquartered in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), its operations are subject to XXXX XXXX, requiring immediate consumer notification of any data breach. Exhibit G ( Notice of False Fraud Assertion ) and Exhibit M ( Damages Statement ) quantify harm and costs arising from this mishandling. 

This matter now affects all three national credit bureaus and undermines data reliability for thousands of consumers if the companys potential fraud flag masks a security incident. 

I request the CFPB to coordinate with the following agencies : Washington State Attorney General Data Privacy Unit ( XXXX XXXX ) for breach-notification compliance. 
Texas Attorney General Consumer Protection Division ( XXXX. XXXX. & XXXX. Code XXXX ) for failure to notify a Texas resident. 
Federal Trade Commission Privacy and Data Security Division to add this matter to the Consumer Sentinel Network as Data Breach Company Did Not Notify Me. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to impose a data-integrity hold on all Possible Finance tradelines until the company verifies that its systems and records are secure. 

The record of evidence ( Exhibits AQ ) shows consistent negligence in investigation, communication, and reporting accuracy. This pattern violates FCRA 623 ( b ), 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) and may indicate systemic non-compliance with the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation