Consumer complaint received 2025-12-25 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: Driveway Finance Corporation
State: IN

Complaint narrative:
CFPB CONSUMER REBUTTAL ( SUPPLEMENTAL ) Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX CFPB Case No. : XXXX I submit this supplemental rebuttal in response to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and Driveway Finance Corporation , incorporating newly submitted documentary evidence from XXXX  dated XX/XX/XXXX. 



1. TransUnion Reporting Directly Contradicts the Companys Narrative Despite Firstsources attempt to distance itself from credit reporting activity, the attached TransUnion report confirms that Driveway Finance Corporation is actively furnishing information that is : Internally inconsistent Misleading as to account status Legally inaccurate under the Fair Credit Reporting Act Specifically, XXXX  reflects : Balance : $ XXXX  Monthly Payment : {$0.00} Account Closed : XX/XX/XXXX Pay Status : Account paid in full was a charge-off Remarks : SETTLED LESS THAN FULL BALANCE ; PAID IN FULL / WAS A CHARGE-OFF Estimated Removal Date : XXXX/XXXX These entries are mutually contradictory and can not simultaneously be accurate.

2. Paid in Full vs. Settled for Less Than Full Balance Is Factually Inconsistent An account can not legally be both : Paid in full, and Settled for less than full balance, and A charge-off This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy. Furnishing conflicting payment status codes is per se inaccurate and materially misleading to creditors.

3. Charge-Off Coding Is Improper After Closure and XXXX Balance The account reflects : XXXX balance XXXX monthly payment Account closed Yet Driveway Finance continues to furnish charge-off language and adverse remarks, which artificially suppresses my creditworthiness despite no outstanding obligation.

Courts have consistently held that post-settlement charge-off reporting must be narrowly and accurately described, not exaggerated or double-counted through contradictory status codes.

4. Payment History & Dates Do Not Align With Company Claims XXXX XXXX collection activity began XX/XX/XXXX, yet XXXX  shows : Last payment made : XX/XX/XXXX Date updated : XX/XX/XXXX High balance : {$20000.00} This raises serious questions about : When the account was actually charged off Whether post-charge-off interest or balances were improperly calculated Whether Driveway Finance reported during active dispute and negotiation periods No complete payment history or accounting has been produced to validate this.

5. Failure to Provide Reasonable Investigation Results Neither XXXX no
r XXXX XXXX has supplied : A full transactional ledger A charge-off calculation breakdown Documentation authorizing continued adverse reporting after settlement Proof that the reported status complies with XXXX XXXX standards Absent this, the investigation is not reasonable under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).

6. Requested Relief I respectfully request that the CFPB require Driveway Finance Corporation to : 1. Delete this tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies, OR 2. Immediately correct it to reflect one accurate, non-misleading status, removing all charge-off and settlement language 3. Provide complete written verification supporting any continued reporting If Driveway Finance can not fully substantiate the reporting with documentary proof, continued furnishing constitutes willful noncompliance.

7. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights to pursue civil remedies for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and applicable state law should inaccurate reporting continue.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation