Consumer complaint received 2026-07-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: ECMC GROUP, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I respectfully disagree with ECMC 's response and do not believe my complaint has been fully addressed or resolved. Although ECMC provided additional documentation and a narrative regarding the history of the loan, the response still does not fully address the concerns I raised regarding its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to conduct a reasonable investigation and ensure that every item of information furnished to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies is accurate, complete, and supported by competent documentary evidence. First, I appreciate that ECMC took the time to respond and provide additional records. However, simply providing historical servicing documents, a Master Promissory Note, borrower history reports, and an explanation of the loan timeline does not automatically establish that every item currently being reported to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX is accurate. My dispute concerns the present accuracy of the information being furnished, not merely whether a student loan originated years ago. Throughout my complaint I requested a reasonable reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including a review of each reporting field currently being furnished to the consumer reporting agencies. ECMC 's response largely repeats its previous position that the reporting is accurate without specifically addressing every disputed reporting field individually. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires more than simply reaffirming previous reporting. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), a furnisher receiving notice of a dispute must conduct a reasonable investigation, review all relevant information, determine whether the disputed information can be verified, and correct or delete any information found to be inaccurate or incapable of verification. My concern is that ECMC continues to rely primarily upon historical servicing records without demonstrating how each item currently appearing on my consumer reports was independently verified during the investigation prompted by my dispute. For example, ECMC states that the loan originated in XX/XX/year>, transferred through several servicers, entered default after numerous deferments and forbearances, and that a default claim was ultimately paid before the account was assigned to ECMC. While this narrative provides background, it does not independently establish the accuracy of each reporting field presently being furnished to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies. I specifically requested documentation supporting : The complete servicing history. Every deferment approval. Every forbearance approval. Copies of all requests submitted for deferment or forbearance. The dates each deferment and forbearance became effective. Documentation explaining how interest capitalization occurred. Complete balance calculation worksheets. Documentation identifying every adjustment made to the balance. The complete payment ledger. Documentation identifying the exact date of first delinquency. Documentation supporting the Metro 2 reporting fields currently being furnished. Documentation identifying every reporting code currently being supplied to each consumer reporting agency. Documentation describing the investigation conducted after receipt of my dispute. Although ECMC attached several records, I still do not believe every one of these requests has been specifically addressed. For instance, ECMC states that interest was capitalized after periods of forbearance and that interest accrues daily. While I understand that federal regulations permit interest capitalization under certain circumstances, I requested documentation demonstrating exactly how my balance was calculated. Specifically, I requested an accounting identifying : Original principal. Interest accrued before capitalization. Each capitalization event. Amount capitalized each time. Credits received. Payments applied. Administrative costs. Collection costs, if any. Other adjustments. Current principal balance. Current accrued interest. Total balance currently reported. Without this detailed accounting, I can not independently verify the accuracy of the balance presently being reported. Likewise, ECMC states that my date of first delinquency occurred after the expiration of the applicable grace period and numerous deferments and forbearances. However, because the date of first delinquency governs the reporting period under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I requested written documentation identifying precisely which date ECMC is currently furnishing to each nationwide consumer reporting agency and documentation supporting that date. The response references a servicing timeline but does not specifically identify every reporting field currently being transmitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. My dispute concerns whether each of the following reporting fields remains accurate today : Current balance. Account status. Collection status. Date opened. Date assigned. Date of first delinquency. Date of default. Payment history. Monthly payment. Current reporting codes. Remarks. Collection designation. Portfolio type. Responsibility code. Compliance condition code. Special comment code. Each of these reporting fields affects the accuracy of my consumer reports and should be individually reviewed during a reasonable investigation. ECMC also states that it investigated my complaint through its Complaint Management and Quality Assurance Group. I appreciate this explanation. However, I requested documentation identifying the investigative procedures actually performed after receipt of my dispute. Specifically, I requested : Identification of every document reviewed. Identification of every database consulted. Identification of every employee involved. Explanation of how disputed information was evaluated. Explanation of how ECMC concluded each disputed reporting field remained accurate. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires a reasonable investigation. A reasonable investigation requires more than reviewing internal records and reaffirming previous reporting. It requires consideration of the consumer 's specific disputes and independent verification of disputed information. I also remain concerned that ECMC 's response focuses heavily upon establishing that the loan existed rather than addressing whether every item currently being reported remains accurate. The existence of a Master Promissory Note demonstrates that a loan was originated. It does not automatically verify : Current balance. Current collection status. Current reporting codes. Current payment history. Current account remarks. Current Metro 2 reporting. Current credit bureau reporting. Each of these items should be independently verified before continuing to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. Additionally, ECMC indicates that it reports using the Metro 2 Format established by the Consumer Data Industry Association ( CDIA ). While Metro 2 establishes a reporting standard, compliance with the Metro 2 format alone does not establish compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA independently requires furnishers to ensure maximum possible accuracy and conduct reasonable investigations when disputes are received. My request is therefore not simply for ECMC to explain its reporting process, but to demonstrate that every item of information reported about my account has been verified through competent documentary evidence. If ECMC determines during any supplemental investigation that any information currently furnished is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, internally inconsistent, or unsupported by competent documentary evidence, I request that ECMC immediately notify XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX to correct or delete the affected information. I also request written confirmation identifying every correction made. If ECMC determines that any reporting field can not be verified independently, that information should be deleted pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. My objective is not to dispute information without basis. Rather, I seek a complete and transparent investigation supported by original business records and documentary evidence demonstrating the accuracy of every reporting field currently appearing on my consumer reports. For these reasons, I respectfully disagree that ECMC has fully resolved my complaint. I request that the CFPB note that significant issues remain unresolved and that ECMC conduct a supplemental investigation addressing each disputed reporting field individually, provide the additional documentation requested, and correct or delete any information that can not be fully verified in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation