Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding the reporting, verification, and reinvestigation of derogatory information furnished by Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) on my consumer credit reports. XXXX separate XXXX XXXX entries appear on my reports under different account identifiers and across different credit bureaus, both reported as derogatory or charged off, both carrying the same alleged past-due amount, and both lacking complete documentation, transparency, or lawful verification. Despite my multiple attempts to dispute these entries with the credit bureaus and with the furnisher, the information remains on my reports without proper validation, without evidence of ownership, and without adherence to the procedural requirements mandated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

This narrative explains in detail what has occurred, what information is missing, what was requested, what responses I received, and how XXXX XXXX reporting and verification practices appear to violate federal consumer protection laws. I am filing this complaint to request regulatory review, corrective action, and lawful resolution. 

XXXX. Background of the Reported XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  separate derogatory accounts from Navy Federal Credit Union are appearing on my credit file : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX ( XXXX  ) Status : Collection/Charge-Off Closed : XX/XX/XXXX Past Due Amount : {$5900.00} Negative Payment History : Reported XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX late entries NAVY FCU Account ending XXXX ( XXXX  ) Status : Collection/Charge-Off Closed : XX/XX/XXXX Past Due XXXX : {$5900.00} Similar derogatory notations Although these appear as XXXX separate accounts on XXXX different bureaus, both reflect the exact same alleged past-due balance ( {$5900.00} ), but with different account numbers and differing closing dates. This raises immediate concerns about duplicate reporting, inconsistent reporting, and the possibility of inaccurate data furnishing, all of which are prohibited under the FCRA. 

XXXX. XXXX of the Problem When reviewing my credit reports in XXXX, I noticed that XXXX XXXX had reported the same alleged balance on XXXX different bureaus with different account numbers and timelines. The information raised multiple red flags : The balances were identical although the accounts appeared separate. 

The closing dates differed, suggesting conflicting historical data. 

The charge-off statuses were inconsistent across bureaus. 

No documentation had ever been provided to me by XXXX XXXX confirming the debt. 

I had not been contacted with charge-off notices or verification materials. 

No records were provided showing I owed any such amount. 

These inconsistencies suggested that either the information being furnished was incorrect, the accounts were duplicated, or the reporting systems had failed to maintain accurate records. 

Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies and furnishers have a strict obligation to maintain the maximum possible accuracy of consumer data. The presence of XXXX conflicting entries undermines that obligation. 

XXXX. Steps I Took to Resolve the Issue With the Credit Bureaus After discovering the XXXX Federal derogatory accounts, I filed formal disputes with the credit bureaus ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) challenging : the accuracy of the information, the completeness of the reporting, the legitimacy of the account ( XXXX ), and the validity of the alleged balance. 

I specifically requested : the method of verification, copies of the documentation XXXX XXXX provided, the date the account was verified, the system or database used to confirm the information, whether the verification was conducted manually or through XXXX, and a copy of any XXXX XXXX or correspondence associated with the reinvestigation. 

However, each credit bureau responded with a generic, automated-style statement indicating that the account was verified as accurate by the furnisher. No documentation, contracts, statements, or proof of account ownership were provided. 

This suggests an inadequate reinvestigation, which is prohibited under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( XXXX ). A reasonable reinvestigation requires actual review of documentationnot automatic acceptance of the furnishers unsubstantiated verification. 

XXXX. Lack of Documentation From XXXX XXXX At no point has XXXX XXXX provided : a copy of the original signed credit agreement, billing statements, the account opening date, a complete payment history, a charge-off breakdown, internal records showing ownership, evidence of any written notice of default, certified account statements, or records showing how the {$5900.00} balance was calculated. 

Under FDCPA 809 ( b ) and FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), a consumer is entitled to receive specific verification information when disputing a debt or credit file entry. XXXX XXXX has not supplied such verification. 

Without these documents, the continued reporting of the alleged debt appears to be unsupported, unvalidated, and potentially unlawful. 

XXXX. Duplicate Reporting and Conflicting Information The presence of XXXX separate derogatory XXXXXXXX XXXX records with the same amount due but different : account numbers, closing dates, status descriptions, late payment notations, and delinquency timelines raises serious concerns under FCRA 602 ( a ) and 607 ( b ). 

These provisions prohibit credit reporting agencies and furnishers from : reporting duplicate accounts, reporting conflicting or inaccurate historical data, reporting unverifiable information, and failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping systems. 

Because the accounts differ by ID number and reporting bureau but list identical financial data, it is unclear which if either is correct. The bureaus did not reconcile the differences during the reinvestigation process, suggesting a failure to conduct a proper investigation. 

XXXX. Potential Improper Use of XXXX XXXX It appears that the credit bureaus relied on XXXX automated system to verify the XXXX XXXX accounts rather than conducting a legally required manual review. This system : converts detailed disputes into short codes, often excludes consumer-provided context, encourages speed over accuracy, and frequently results in verified outcomes without documentation. 

The FCRA prohibits reliance on superficial verification processes that lack human oversight. XXXX XXXX verification appears to have been as simple as responding verified to an automated inquiry without providing any documents or proof. 

This practice violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), which requires bureaus to reveal the actual procedure used to determine accuracynot merely state that the furnisher verified the account. 

XXXX. Failure to Mark the Accounts as Disputed Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), once a consumer disputes an account with a credit bureau, the furnisher must report the information as disputed by consumer. XXXX XXXX has not consistently marked these accounts as disputed on all bureaus. 

This omission is harmful and misleading because lenders reviewing my reports XXXX assume the information is uncontested when in fact it is actively disputed. This misrepresentation influences credit decisions and violates FCRA obligations. 

XXXX. No Proof of Ownership or Chain of Title If XXXX XXXX sold, transferred, or reassigned the alleged debt, they are required to maintain : chain-of-assignment records, ownership certification documents, transfer agreements, legal authority to report, and complete internal history. 

No such information has been produced. 

If XXXX XXXX still owns the debt, they have failed to provide : proof of origination, proof of default, or proof of charge-off. 

If they no longer own the debt, they XXXX no longer have the legal right to report it. 

Either scenario underscores the need for CFPB intervention. 

XXXX. Harm and Damages Resulting From XXXX XXXX Reporting The derogatory and conflicting XXXX XXXX entries have caused : decreases in my XXXX XXXX, denials for credit applications, limited access to housing opportunities, increased interest rates, reputational damage, and emotional distress. 

Because the information appears unverified and inaccurate, these adverse effects constitute actual harm under FCRA 616 ( a ). 

Failing to properly investigate a dispute is considered negligence or willful noncompliance, both of which are actionable under federal law. 

XXXX. Pattern of Procedural Noncompliance The sequence of events demonstrates a pattern : XXXX XXXX furnished derogatory information. 

I disputed the entries with the bureaus. 

The bureaus requested verification from XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX responded with a one-word automated confirmation ( verified ). 

No documents were reviewed, provided, or validated. 

The bureaus accepted the verification without further scrutiny. 

The accounts remain with conflicting information on my reports. 

This pattern indicates that both the bureaus and XXXX XXXX have failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). 

XXXX. Regulatory Concerns and the Need for CFPB XXXX Based on the entire sequence of events, it appears that XXXX XXXX XXXX have : reported inaccurate information, furnished conflicting data, failed to validate disputed accounts, failed to respond with documentation, relied solely on automated verification, failed to mark the accounts as disputed, failed to provide any chain-of-title or ownership records, potentially duplicated reporting across bureaus, and failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 

These issues merit review and intervention by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

XXXX. Summary of What Happened With XXXXXXXX XXXX In summary, the XXXX XXXX XXXX entries appear to have been : inaccurately reported, inconsistently reported, insufficiently verified, improperly duplicated, inadequately reinvestigated, lacking any documentary proof, not marked as disputed, and harmful to my credit profile. 

I have acted in good faith by submitting disputes, requesting documentation, and seeking clarity. XXXX XXXX has not provided any proof that the accounts are legitimate, accurate, or lawfully reportable. 

For these reasons, I am requesting that the CFPB intervene and ensure that XXXX XXXX complies fully with the FCRA and FDCPA, and that the credit bureaus correct or remove the disputed information accordingly.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief