Consumer complaint received 2026-03-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened to arrest you or take you to jail if you do not pay
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I do not consider Barclays Bank Delawares response to be satisfactory, complete, or responsive to the substance of my complaint. The response once again reiterates prior conclusions without addressing the central and unchanged issue : I do not own this account, I did not open it, and I did not authorize it. This account is the result of identity theft, which is why I filed an Identity Theft Report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). Barclays continues to rely on internal records and public-record matching to assert that the account is valid. However, identity theft frequently involves the misuse of accurate personal identifying information. The fact that certain information matches public records does not establish that I personally applied for or authorized the account. It merely demonstrates that someone had access to my personal data. That is the very nature of identity theft. Throughout multiple disputes and CFPB complaints, Barclays has failed to produce competent, objective proof that I personally opened or used this account. Specifically, Barclays has not provided : A signed credit application bearing my verified signature Verifiable electronic consent logs showing my authenticated submission IP address or device verification tied to me personally Evidence that I personally activated or used the card Proof that payments originated from an account solely under my control Instead, Barclays relies on generalized documentation such as a cardmember agreement and billing statements. These documents merely show that an account exists ; they do not prove that I entered into the agreement. In identity theft cases, generic account documentation is insufficient to establish consumer authorization. The companys response also emphasizes that it is obligated to report accurate information. However, accuracy must be measured as to the consumer being reported. Reporting a debt to the wrong consumer is not accurate. Continuing to report disputed information without sufficient verification does not satisfy the obligation to report accurately. Additionally, this matter has already been the subject of prior CFPB case XXXX, which was closed without resolving the dispute. The fact that Barclays simply repeats its prior conclusions does not cure the deficiencies in its investigation. Closing a complaint while continuing to report a fraudulent account does not eliminate the harm. That is why this new case was filed. Barclays position appears to be that because its internal fraud review did not identify discrepancies, the account must be valid. This is not a sufficient standard in identity theft cases. Internal belief or consistency within company records does not override a consumers documented identity theft claim. The burden is not on me to prove that I did not open the account ; rather, Barclays must substantiate that I did. I also note that Barclays has acknowledged that the account remains reported as disputed. Merely marking an account as disputed does not correct inaccurate reporting. It simply acknowledges disagreement while allowing the negative informationsuch as charge-off status and derogatory payment historyto continue harming my credit profile. The continued reporting of this account has caused measurable consumer harm. It falsely portrays me as having defaulted on a financial obligation I never agreed to. It has required repeated disputes, multiple CFPB complaints, and significant time and effort to attempt correction. The emotional and administrative burden of defending against fraudulent reporting should not fall on the victim of identity theft. I am not requesting compensation. I am requesting compliance, accuracy, and proper application of identity theft protections. A fair and reasonable response from Barclays would involve : A good-faith reassessment of the account under identity theft standards. Objective verification that demonstrates my personal authorization, not merely matching data. Deletion of the account if such proof can not be produced. Written confirmation that I have no liability for the account. Barclays repeated assertion that it fully complies with all applicable consumer protection laws is conclusory and unsupported by meaningful evidence in this matter. Compliance requires more than repeating prior conclusions ; it requires a reasonable investigation and consideration of identity theft documentation. For these reasons, I do not accept the companys response as satisfactory. I am requesting continued CFPB oversight to ensure that this matter receives proper review and that inaccurate credit reporting is corrected. This account does not belong to me. I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report for that reason. I respectfully request that this complaint remain open for further review and that Barclays be required to substantiate its position with competent evidence or delete the account.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation