Consumer complaint received 2026-03-23 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: FirstKey Holdings, LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal response to the companys explanation because their reply fails to resolve the core issue of this complaint and instead relies on generalized documentation, bulk data records, and securitization paperwork that do not constitute proper validation, nor do they establish a lawful basis for reporting this account on my consumer credit file. At the outset, I want to clearly reiterate that I do not recognize, authorize, or accept responsibility for the alleged account referenced by XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX. I did not open, apply for, sign for, or knowingly benefit from this account. My position remains unchanged : this account is inaccurate, unverified, and must be removed. The companys response attempts to justify continued reporting by providing a collection of documents, including a disclosure statement, payment history, and securitization agreements. However, none of these documents satisfy the legal burden required under federal law to validate a disputed account, nor do they establish that I am contractually obligated to this alleged debt. XXXX. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ORIGINAL CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY The most critical deficiency in the companys response is the complete absence of a properly executed, legally binding agreement bearing my signature that proves I entered into this alleged loan. The document provided, labeled as a XXXX XXXX, shows loan terms and general information but does not constitute a signed promissory note or enforceable contract. It simply outlines terms that could apply to any borrower. It does not prove that I agreed to those terms. For example, the disclosure indicates : Loan amount : {$10000.00} XXXX : approximately 8.486 % Payments scheduled over 240 months However, this document does not include : My signature A verified execution date tied to me Proof of identity authentication at origination Any authentication method confirming I personally authorized the loan Without a signed contract or equivalent legal instrument, there is no enforceable obligation. Under FCRA XXXX ( b ), a furnisher must verify disputed information using competent evidence. A generic disclosure is not sufficient. XXXX. PAYMENT HISTORY DOES NOT PROVE OWNERSHIP The company also submitted a detailed payment history showing transactions from XXXX through XXXX. While extensive, this document actually raises additional concerns rather than validating the account. The payment history shows : Numerous payments over time Interest capitalization events XXXX fees and adjustments A final default status in XXXX However, this record does not establish that I made those payments. It only shows that payments were made on an account. There is no linkage proving : The payment source was mine The account was accessed by me The payments originated from my bank account or authorization A transaction log is not proof of identity. It is simply internal accounting data. Under FCRA standards, identity linkage must be establishednot assumed. XXXX. E-Oscar / AUTOMATED VERIFICATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT The documents include an AUD ( Automated Universal Dataform ) from the e-Oscar system, which indicates that the account was verified electronically. This document shows : XXXX submitted through XXXX Account number and reporting details A certification by the furnisher that the data is accurate However, this is a self-certification by the furnishernot independent verification. This is a critical issue. Under FCRA XXXX, a reasonable reinvestigation requires more than simply forwarding data through an automated system and accepting the furnishers response. Courts have consistently held that parroting furnisher data through e-Oscar does not meet the legal standard of a reasonable investigation. The company has not demonstrated : Manual review of original source documents Examination of XXXX XXXX XXXX Any independent investigation beyond automated processes Therefore, the verification cited in their response is procedurally insufficient and legally inadequate. XXXX. SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS DO NOT PROVE LIABILITY The company also submitted multiple securitization agreements involving XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and related entities. These documents outline : Sale and transfer of loan portfolios XXXX structures and asset-backed securities Agreements between financial institutions ( represented by XXXX content ) However, these documents are entirely irrelevant to my liability. They do not : Show that my specific account was legally transferred with a complete chain of title Prove that I consented to assignment or sale Establish that I am contractually bound to any current entity More importantly, securitization agreements govern relationships between financial institutionsnot between a consumer and a lender. These documents attempt to establish ownership of a portfolio, not validation of an individual debt. XXXX. INCONSISTENCIES IN CREDIT REPORTING DATA The Experian-related document shows : NO RECORD FOUND This directly contradicts the companys claim that the account is valid and consistently reported. If the account can not be found in XXXX bureaus system while being reported in another, it raises serious concerns about : XXXX integrity XXXX consistency Accuracy of the account itself XXXX FCRA XXXX ( b ), reporting must reflect maximum possible accuracy across all systemsnot fragmented or inconsistent data. XXXX. ACCOUNT HISTORY RAISES RED FLAGS The Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX shows : Charge-off status Date of first delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX Account opened : XX/XX/XXXX This creates a timeline inconsistency. If the account originated in XXXX but the first delinquency is decades later, it raises questions about : Account aging and re-aging practices Proper reporting under FCRA time limitations Whether the account has been improperly updated or manipulated Additionally, the account shows it was transferred or sold, yet no complete chain of assignment with consumer-level documentation has been provided. XXXX. FAILURE TO MEET FCRA METHOD OF VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I previously requested the method of verification as required under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). The company has failed to provide : The specific method used to verify the account The name and title of the individual who performed the verification The exact documents reviewed The system used ( manual vs automated ) Instead, they provided bulk documentation without connecting it to a proper verification process. This is noncompliance. XXXX. FAILURE TO PROVE IDENTITY LINKAGE At no point in the companys response did they provide : IP logs or application records Identity authentication data Signature verification Any biometric or authentication confirmation Without this, there is no proof that I am the individual who opened or authorized this account. XXXX. LEGAL CONCLUSION The company has failed to meet its burden under : FCRA XXXX ( b ) accuracy FCRA XXXX ( a ) reasonable reinvestigation FCRA XXXX ( b ) furnisher investigation requirements They have provided : Generalized documents Internal records Securitization paperwork Automated verification outputs But they have NOT provided : A signed contract Proof of identity linkage Independent verification Proper chain of title tied to me XXXX. DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION A fair and lawful resolution requires the following : Immediate deletion of the disputed account from all credit reporting agencies Written confirmation that the account has been permanently removed Certification that the account will not be reinserted without full compliance with FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) A full method of verification disclosure if the account is not deleted Documentation showing identity linkage, if they claim continued reporting is valid FINAL STATEMENT The companys response relies on volume rather than validity. Providing large amounts of paperwork does not substitute for legal proof. The burden is not on me to disprove the account. The burden is on the furnisher and credit reporting agency to prove accuracy and ownership. They have failed to do so. Therefore, this account must be deleted.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation