Consumer complaint received 2025-12-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Kikoff Inc.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
This is a formal request for CFPB intervention due to Kikoffs failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) during the reinvestigation of my prior dispute.

Kikoff verified late payments and a charge-off on my credit reports without providing legally required documentation, thereby violating multiple sections of the FCRA. 
1. Kikoff Did NOT Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ) In response to my original complaint, Kikoff submitted : A generic payment history A copy of my agreement A conclusory statement saying they can not remove accurately reported information This does NOT satisfy the requirements of a reasonable investigation under FCRA 623 ( b ).

Kikoff did not provide : Time-stamped furnishing logs Internal accounting ledger Evidence of procedural accuracy Evidence of a step-by-step investigation Proof of how each late payment was individually verified Proof that billing statements were sent in accordance with FCBA requirements Proof that delinquency notices were provided Documentation supporting the DOFD used for the charge-off Evidence that the data they furnish matches their internal system Logs showing correspondence, dispute-handling notes, or verification audit trails Without this documentation, Kikoff could NOT have reasonably verified anything they reported.

This violates : FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) failure to conduct reasonable investigation FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) failure to review all relevant information FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) failure to report results accurately to bureaus FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) failure to correct or delete unverifiable information 2. Kikoff Is Furnishing Data Inconsistent With Their Own Records The account history Kikoff provided contains multiple internal inconsistencies : Statement minimums in their own document do not match the minimum payment terms required by the agreement Statement dates are inconsistent and missing months Several months show statement minimum payment {$0.00}, which conflicts with the agreements {$5.00} minimum Payment transaction sequencing does not follow correct billing cycles Amounts past due are inconsistent with the furnished delinquency timeline The alleged DOFD does not match the dates shown in their own spreadsheet Under FCRA 607 ( b ), furnishers must ensure maximum possible accuracy.

Kikoff has failed to demonstrate even basic internal accuracy.

Inconsistent internal data = inaccurate reporting.

Inaccurate reporting that can not be substantiated must be deleted, not verified.

3. Kikoff Failed to Provide Proof of Compliance With the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) To legally report late payments under FCRA and FCBA, a furnisher must prove : Statements were sent each month Statements contained required disclosures The consumer was properly notified of any delinquency Any increases in minimum payments were properly disclosed Statements were sent in a manner reasonably expected to be received Billing errors were appropriately handled Kikoff provided none of the above.

If they can not prove statements were legally delivered, they can not legally claim the consumer was late.

Failure to prove billing compliance = failure to substantiate delinquency reporting.

4. Kikoff Verified Without Substantiation ( FCRA 611 ( a ) ) A furnisher can not simply refer to its internal system and call that verification.

Verification requires : Documentary evidence A traceable investigation Proof the furnished data is complete and accurate Proof that each late payment was due, billed, and delinquent under law Kikoff provided NO evidence meeting any legal burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies with the furnisher not the consumer.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation