Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
The issue I am reporting concerns the way the XXXX account has been reported on my credit file, the way my disputes regarding this account were handled, and the failure of both the data furnisher and the credit reporting agencies to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). This account is showing as a derogatory item, with a charge-off status, late payments, and negative payment history. However, none of this information has been properly verified or supported with documentation, despite multiple dispute attempts. The inaccurate and unverified reporting of this account has caused substantial harm, and the companies involved have not followed lawful procedures to validate, correct, or remove the account. 

The problems began when I obtained copies of my consumer credit reports and noticed that the XXXX  account was being reported as a derogatory item, listed either as a charge-off or as a collection account depending on the bureau. The tradeline also shows multiple late payments, including XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX delinquencies. I did not receive prior documentation from the creditor that explained these reported delinquencies, nor did I receive proper notices typically required before an account is charged off, transferred, or sent to collections. 

Because of these discrepancies, I initiated formal disputes with each of the major credit reporting agencies. I requested that they validate the account, confirm its accuracy, and provide copies of the original documentation used to verify the information. Under the FCRA, when a consumer disputes an account, the credit bureaus must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and must verify the accuracy of the information with the furnisher. They must also delete any information that can not be verified. 

In my dispute letters, I asked the credit bureaus to provide the method of verification as allowed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). This includes : Who verified the account. 
What documents were reviewed. 
How the verification was conducted. 
Whether the verification was automated or manual. 
Whether original account documentation was provided. 

However, the credit reporting agencies did not provide any of this information. I received generic notifications stating that the account had been verified as accurate, without any explanation of how this verification was performed. The dispute results contained no documents, no statements, no contracts, and no evidence indicating that the account was properly validated with original records. 

The pattern suggests that the credit reporting agencies forwarded the dispute to the furnisher using automated systems such as e-Oscar, which many courts have found to be inadequate for meaningful dispute investigations. The furnisher then likely responded by electronically marking the account as verified, without providing any original account records. The credit bureaus appear to have accepted this automated response without requiring proof. 

Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit reporting agencies must maintain reasonable procedures to ensure " maximum possible accuracy. '' Simply receiving a one-word electronic confirmation from the furnisher can not be considered a reasonable procedure, especially when the consumer has asked for original documentation or specific validation. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a debt can not be collected or reported without validation. Because no validation was provided, continued reporting of the XXXX account appears to violate these federal requirements. 

Another major issue is that the furnishers did not provide any evidence that the account belonged to me or that the data they reported was accurate. No original signed credit application, no account statements, no itemized billing statements, no notices of default, and no charge-off documentation were ever provided. The lack of these documents suggests that the furnisher XXXX not have possession of the original account records. 

Furthermore, inconsistencies exist across the credit reports. The bureaus are not reporting identical information regarding late payments, delinquency dates, or status updates. When the same account appears differently among bureaus, it signals that at least some of the data is inaccurate. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ), data furnishers must report accurate information. Furnishing conflicting data across bureaus contradicts the accuracy requirement. 

Additionally, I noticed that during periods when disputes were active, some credit bureaus failed to mark the XXXX  account as disputed by consumer. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), furnishers must notify credit bureaus when an account is disputed. When this notation is missing, it misleads third-party creditors who XXXX review the report and assume the accuracy of the data. 

Throughout the dispute process, I acted responsibly and submitted disputes in writing. I clearly explained the inaccuracies and provided details about the issues with the reporting. Despite this, the bureaus failed to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation. They did not ask for specific documentation from the furnisher, did not provide any documents to me, and did not follow the FCRA requirements for verifying disputed accounts. 

The harm caused by the inaccurate reporting of this account is significant. Credit scores are directly impacted by negative items such as charge-offs, collections, and late payments. Because of the inaccurate reporting of this account, my XXXX score was reduced, which affected my ability to obtain credit under fair terms. For example, I faced higher interest rates, experienced increased difficulty obtaining credit approvals, and suffered reputational harm when applying for financial products. These consequences are unfair because the companies reporting the information have not demonstrated that the account is legitimate or accurate. 

Additionally, I lost time and resources attempting to correct the inaccuracies. I spent hours gathering documentation, drafting dispute letters, and following up with the credit bureaus. I used certified mail to ensure delivery of my disputes, incurred mailing costs, and suffered stress and frustration due to the bureaus failure to comply with the law. 

The dispute process should have required the furnisher to provide original documentation to justify the reporting of the XXXX account. Instead, the credit bureaus appear to have accepted an automated confirmation without requiring evidence. This violates the reasonable investigation standard that federal law requires. 

Because no validation was provided, the bureaus should have removed or suppressed the account under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ). Instead, they kept the account, which continues to harm my credit standing. This refusal to delete unverifiable information constitutes non-compliance. 

The fair and lawful procedure would have required : Obtaining original account records from the furnisher. 

Reviewing signed contracts, statements, and payment history. 

Confirming delinquency dates and charge-off dates with documentation. 

Ensuring that all information reported matches original records. 

Deleting the account if validation could not be produced. 

None of these steps occurred. 

Furthermore, the credit reporting agencies did not provide the method of verification, which is required when a consumer requests it. Without knowing how the bureaus verified the account, it is impossible to determine whether the account was accurately investigated. 

Another concerning aspect is that no proof of chain of custody was provided. If the account was sold, transferred, or assigned, there should be a bill of sale or assignment agreement proving the transfer. Without such proof, no collection or reporting activity should continue. 

This failure to produce documentation raises concerns that the furnisher XXXX not legally own the account or XXXX not have authority to report it. Under FDCPA rules, debt XXXX must provide validation before reporting, and under FCRA, furnishers must ensure accuracy and respond to disputes with documentation. When they do not, the information must be removed. 

I also want to note that the bureaus have a legal responsibility to delete or correct information that can not be verified. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) and 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) explicitly state that any item which can not be verified must be deleted. Because the XXXX tradeline has not been validated with original documents, it should have been removed. Keeping the account on my report without evidence is a direct violation of the FCRA. 

The inaccurate reporting also creates a long-term impact. Many lenders use automated risk assessments based on information in credit reports. When inaccurate information is present, it can lead to denials or high-cost credit unfairly. Because this account remains inaccurately and unverifiably reported, it continues to harm my financial reputation every day that it remains on my report. 

Additionally, the credit bureaus XXXX to conduct an adequate investigation contributes to an unjust system where inaccurate data persists due to automated processes rather than thoughtful review. This undermines the integrity of the consumer reporting system and violates the fundamental purpose of the FCRA : ensuring fairness, accuracy, and consumer protection. 

In summary, what happened is as follows : The XXXX account is reporting inaccurate derogatory information. 
The negative information includes charge-off status and multiple late payments. 
I disputed the account multiple times with all major credit bureaus. 
The bureaus responded with generic verified statements. 
No original documentation was ever provided. 
The bureaus appear to have relied solely on automated responses. 
No reasonable reinvestigation was conducted. 
No method of verification was provided. 
No contract, statements, or ownership records were produced. 
The bureaus failed to remove unverifiable information. 
My creditworthiness was negatively impacted. 
I suffered financial, emotional, and reputational harm. 
The reporting agencies did not comply with FCRA requirements. 
The furnisher did not comply with FDCPA validation obligations. 

Given all of these factors, what happened constitutes a failure by both the bureaus and the furnisher to comply with federal consumer protection laws and a failure to safeguard the accuracy and fairness of my consumer credit report.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation