Consumer complaint received 2025-07-03 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
On or about XX/XX/XXXX, a revolving credit account issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX  was charged off with a purported delinquent balance of {$1000.00}. Subsequent to this event, I submitted a formal dispute with Equifax Information Services LLC pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), demanding reinvestigation and documentary substantiation of the derogatory tradeline. I simultaneously invoked compliance obligations rooted in the Consumer Data Industry Associations ( CDIA ) Metro 2 Credit Reporting Resource Guide, which establishes industry-standardized data furnishers reporting protocols.

Despite the legal requirement to conduct a reasonable, timely, and complete reinvestigation within 30 calendar days of receiving my dispute, Equifax has willfully and negligently failed to do so. More specifically, the tradeline remains reported in a structurally and materially defective manner that directly contravenes both FCRA statutory mandates and Metro 2 data field requirements, including : Reporting the account as both charged-off and past due simultaneously a condition that is mutually exclusive under Metro 2 formatting logic ( i.e., a charged-off account can not legally or technically report an open delinquency or aging balance ).

Reflecting 150 % + utilization on a closed revolving account, thereby creating a fictitious elevation of total utilization ratio, which is expressly misleading and materially adverse to credit scoring models.

Failing to suppress the account from utilization metrics despite closure, which contradicts Metro 2 guidance on Field 27A ( Current Balance ) and Field 28A ( Credit Limit ) when associated with a charged-off designation.

On May 29, 2025, I escalated the dispute by filing a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB XXXX Number : XXXX ). Equifax issued a boilerplate non-substantive response on XX/XX/XXXX, more than 30 days post-filing, asserting that I must provide identification documentation via postal mail a request which is procedurally invalid under the FCRA, as no identity theft flag or fraud alert was present, nor has Equifax previously challenged the authenticity of my identity across its consumer-facing interfaces. 

This response constitutes a deliberate attempt to evade statutory obligations under : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to reinvestigate disputed information within the prescribed statutory period.

15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide a full summary of the reinvestigation and the contact information of the furnisher.

15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.

15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Failure to disclose the precise method of verification and identity of the source furnishing the data.

15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) Failure to appropriately modify, delete, or permanently block information that can not be verified.

15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o Civil liability for willful and negligent noncompliance, respectively.

Moreover, Equifaxs misreporting practices compromise the integrity of my consumer profile, directly impairing my ability to obtain credit on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. The willful refusal to correct or delete the account after noticedespite the absence of any responsive documentary evidence or lawful validationconstitutes a systemic pattern of procedural indifference and data governance negligence. 

As of this filing, Equifax has failed to : Produce any verification documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX Provide the furnishers contact information Deliver a complete reinvestigation report as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) Correct the Metro 2 formatting violations Cease materially misleading reporting that undermines the principle of maximum possible accuracy Their response does not satisfy even the minimal threshold for legal compliance, and instead serves as a transparent evasion mechanism designed to delay redress and exhaust the consumers patience a tactic that the CFPB has previously condemned in enforcement actions against other consumer reporting agencies.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation