Consumer complaint received 2025-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns the manner in which Exeter Finance has reported a derogatory account, including late payments, charge-off status, extended delinquency, and collection-related updates, to the consumer reporting agencies. The information reported by Exeter Finance appears to be inaccurate, incomplete, unverified, and inconsistent with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the procedures that furnishers must follow when supplying information to the nationwide credit bureaus. I have attempted to dispute the reporting multiple times with the credit bureaus, but the results have been insufficient, and the reinvestigations appear to have been conducted improperly or without proper documentation.

The negative information reported by Exeter Finance includes multiple months of late payments across several delinquency categories, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late reporting. The account was eventually closed and categorized as a charge-off/collection. At the time the negative information was added, Exeter Finance did not provide any detailed documentation supporting the accuracy of its reporting. During my disputes, neither Exeter Finance nor the credit bureaus provided any documentation showing how the information was verified, whether original account records were reviewed, or whether the data was supported by proper evidence.

The reporting shows an extensive history of delinquencies that allegedly occurred over a long period of time. The reported pattern includes numerous consecutive late payments, including an extended period of 90-day late status lasting for many months. However, Exeter Finance has never provided a full payment history, account statements, billing records, transaction-level entries, or internal ledger documentation supporting the specific dates and classifications of these delinquencies. Without such documentation, there is no reasonable way for a furnisher to confirm that each 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late mark is accurately reported.

In addition, the charge-off designation applied to the account appears to lack documentation showing when the account was first delinquent, how the charge-off balance was calculated, whether any fees or interest were added, and whether those additions were lawful. For a charge-off to be valid, the furnisher must maintain a record of how the balance was derived, including principal, interest, late fees, repossession costs, or other amounts. None of this information has been supplied.

When I disputed the reporting directly with the credit bureaus, the bureaus claimed the account was verified. However, the results did not include any explanation of how Exeter Finance verified the information. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), the consumer reporting agencies must provide a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information when a consumer requests the method of verification. In my case, the credit bureaus returned only generic statements indicating that the furnisher verified the information. The bureaus did not disclose whether Exeter Finance provided documentation, whether any manual review occurred, whether original records were examined, or whether an automated system simply responded to the dispute.

It appears highly likely that the only verification performed was through the automated e-OSCAR system. e-OSCAR does not require the furnisher to provide documents or proof. It simply allows the furnisher to send back a response code. Such automated verification is not sufficient under the FCRA. A reasonable investigation requires the furnisher to review all relevant information, including documentation provided by the consumer, internal billing records, account histories, and legal agreements.

During my disputes, I requested that Exeter Finance produce original account documents, including the contract associated with the vehicle financing, the full payment history, and any records showing assignment, repossession activity, or charge-off calculations. None of these records were provided to me. I was not supplied with any statements, transaction records, internal communications, or documents supporting Exeter Finances reporting. The lack of documentation calls into question the validity of the negative information and the legitimacy of Exeter Finances response to the reinvestigation requests.

Additionally, FCRA 623 requires furnishers to only report accurate information. Furnishers must also update or delete information that can not be verified. If Exeter Finance can not provide documentation showing the accuracy of each piece of negative informationespecially the detailed late-payment history and charge-off classificationthen the information should not remain on my credit report.

Exeter Finance has reported extensive delinquency, including approximately 28 months of 90-day late status. For this degree of reporting, a furnisher must have detailed records demonstrating exactly when payments were missed, what the account balance was at each stage, and how each delinquency was coded. The burden is on the furnisher to maintain accurate, original records. Without access to these records, the reporting can not be verified.

Another issue concerns the timeline of the account closure. The account is reported as closed and charged off on a specific date. Furnishers must document : When the account entered delinquency When it reached 120180 days past due When the charge-off was processed How the final charge-off amount was determined Whether the account was transferred, sold, or internally reassigned No such information has been provided by Exeter Finance.

Additionally, I have concerns about how Exeter Finance handled internal assignments or debt transfers. If the account was transferred to a third-party debt collector or debt buyer, Exeter Finance is required to maintain documentation showing the chain of assignment. This includes a bill of sale, forward flow agreement, purchase contract, or other instrument establishing the legal right of the new party to furnish data. If Exeter Finance transferred the account but continues reporting derogatory information without proper documentation, this may violate FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) by furnishing information without assuring its accuracy.

If the account was not transferred, Exeter Finance must still provide evidence showing they retained the authority to report the debt and that their internal records support the negative information. Without these records, there is no assurance that the information reported to the credit bureaus is accurate.

When consumers dispute an account, furnishers are obligated to conduct a reasonable investigation under FCRA 623 ( b ). A reasonable investigation is more than simply confirming that the data matches what is in the furnishers system. Furnishers must examine underlying documents, review payment histories, and verify that the data originated accurately. In this case, Exeter Finance has not demonstrated that they conducted any such review during the reinvestigation process. The lack of transparency and the absence of documentation strongly suggest the reinvestigation was inadequate.

The consumer reporting agencies also have obligations under FCRA 611. They are required to perform an independent reinvestigation, not simply rely on the furnishers automated response. The bureaus must examine all evidence submitted by the consumer and evaluate inconsistencies. In my case, the credit bureaus appear to have accepted Exeter Finances automated confirmation without obtaining or reviewing any actual records, which constitutes a failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ).

These issues are particularly concerning given the severity of the negative information Exeter Finance is reporting. A long history of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late reporting, combined with a charge-off and collection status, significantly impacts creditworthiness. Due to the substantial impact, accuracy and documentation are crucial. Without documentation supporting the reporting of each delinquency period, the negative information should not continue to be published.

In addition, FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) requires furnishers to mark an account as disputed when a consumer challenges the accuracy of the reporting. At various points during my disputes, the account was not consistently marked as disputed across all credit bureaus. Furnishers must notify all consumer reporting agencies to which they have reported the account that the account is disputed. Failing to do so creates incomplete and misleading information on the credit report.

I am also concerned that Exeter Finances reporting may include outdated or incorrect information. Under FCRA, furnishers and bureaus must ensure that information is current and not obsolete. If any part of the late-payment history, charge-off event, or balance amount is incorrect, it should not remain on the report.

The failure of Exeter Finance to produce supporting documentation raises significant doubts about whether the information is accurate. A furnishers internal notes or data fields are insufficient to verify an account ; they must supply proof. Without proof, the information is not verifiable under FCRA standards.

Furthermore, I am concerned that Exeter Finance did not provide any accounting records showing how the past-due amount or charged-off balance was calculated. For example, if any interest, fees, or ancillary charges were added, the furnisher must demonstrate that these charges were permitted by the original financing agreement and by applicable law. Without these records, the charge-off balance can not be trusted as accurate.

I also believe that errors may have occurred during the servicing of the account before it reached charge-off. It is possible that payments were misapplied, credited on incorrect dates, or not applied to the principal in accordance with the agreement. Without documentation showing the accounts full payment history, there is no way to determine whether the delinquency reporting is valid.

Given the volume of negative information Exeter Finance is reportinglate payments across multiple periods, an extended period of delinquency, and a charge-offthe furnisher must maintain a high burden of proof. Every tradeline entry must be accurate and based on evidence. Without documentation, the furnishers and credit bureaus should not be reporting this information as fact.

Additionally, if the vehicle associated with the account was repossessed or surrendered, Exeter Finance must provide documentation showing the method of disposal, sale price, deficiency balance calculation, and dates associated with the process. None of this information was provided during the reinvestigation process.

Moreover, if any insurance claims, payment deferrals, hardship accommodations, or other account modifications occurred, those would affect delinquency reporting. Without full records, it is impossible to determine whether the negative information is accurate.

The credit bureaus rapid verification responsessometimes within dayssuggest that Exeter Finance did not conduct a thorough review. It is not reasonable or plausible that a furnisher could locate original account documents, billing records, chain-of-title documents, and internal servicing notes within such a short period. Therefore, it is almost certain that the verification consisted of nothing more than an automated confirmation.

Furnishers can not simply respond verified without conducting an investigation. And credit bureaus can not claim verified without supporting documentation. The current reporting violates the principles of accuracy, fairness, and documentation required by the FCRA.

Given all of the above, I am requesting that the CFPB investigate Exeter Finances reporting, its reinvestigation procedures, its verification methods, and its compliance with FCRA 623 and FDCPA validation standards ( where applicable ). The documentation I requested is necessary to confirm the accuracy of the account. If Exeter Finance can not produce the required documentation, then the derogatory information should not remain on my credit report.

I am requesting that the CFPB require Exeter Finance and the credit bureaus to comply fully with federal law, provide documentation supporting the negative reporting, or remove the account entirely if it can not be verified.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation