Consumer complaint received 2025-07-05 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: CarMax, Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am formally requesting the immediate deletion of the derogatory account being reported by XXXX on my credit file. After a thorough review of the reporting in light of federal consumer protection statutes, I am exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and applicable case law to demand accurate, verifiable, and non-misleading information in my consumer file. 

This account is marked as : In Collections/Charge-off XXXX days late Profit and Loss Write-off Dispute resolved subscriber disagrees ( noted twice ) These remarks are contradictory and violate several consumer protection laws : Violations and Consumer Rights 1. Incomplete and Inaccurate Reporting Per 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers must conduct a proper investigation when notified of a dispute. Multiple entries showing dispute resolved subscriber disagrees with no further explanation or evidence of a bona fide investigation constitute incomplete and misleading information, which is grounds for removal. 
XXXX. Obsolete Reporting If this debt was charged off and no legal collection action has been taken within the statute of limitations for Georgia ( usually 4 years for auto loans ), continued reporting may be considered willful intent to damage reputation, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681n. 
XXXX. Unverified Debt If XXXX can not provide a full accounting of the alleged obligation, including original contract, payment history, and legal right to collect, continued reporting constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g and 1692e under FDCPA. 
XXXX. Failure to Report as Disputed According to FTC v. Equifax, if a furnisher knows a consumer has disputed an account and fails to clearly label it as disputed on all reports, that furnisher is in violation of federal law.

5. Double Jeopardy in Reporting Repeating the same remark ( Dispute resolved subscriber disagrees ) multiple times in the remarks section is excessive and prejudicial. It contributes to a false impression and hinders the consumers ability to obtain fair credit terms. 



DEMAND FOR REMEDY Accordingly, I am demanding the following remedies : XXXX. Immediate removal of this derogatory account from all consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ). 
XXXX. Written confirmation that the tradeline has been removed, sent to the address above. 
XXXX. If this account can not be validated with full documentation ( not mere account screenshots ), I demand permanent deletion. 

If you fail to comply within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter, I am prepared to take legal action including, but not limited to, filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the Office of the Georgia Attorney General, as well as pursuing civil claims under FCRA 1681n and FDCPA 1692k for statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. 

Let this serve as notice of intent to litigate if the matter is not resolved amicably. 

Respectfully, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation