Consumer complaint received 2025-11-12 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
Over the past year I have been engaged in repeated efforts to correct inaccurate, incomplete, and unverified information appearing on my consumer credit reports maintained by the XXXX nationwide credit bureaus. Despite multiple written disputes and requests for validation, several derogatory or negative accounts remain reported without the legally required proof of accuracy or ownership. These items have damaged my creditworthiness, limited my access to fair financing, and demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

XXXX. Background and Nature of the Dispute Upon reviewing my credit files from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, I identified XXXX accounts reported with negative or derogatory information that appear to be inaccurate or unverifiable. They include : XXXX XXXX XXXX Shows two 30-day late payments even though no verified proof of delinquency exists. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Closed with a XXXX balance in XX/XX/XXXX, yet still reports multiple 30/60/90-day late notations. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Displays XXXX XXXX late despite continuous, timely payments. 

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Marked Paid/Closed yet still lists two 30-day lates. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection account of {$510.00} without proof of ownership or assignment from the original creditor. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection account of {$340.00} lacking validation or evidence identifying the original creditor. 

These tradelines affect all three bureaus differently, but each remains despite the absence of substantiating documentation. Their persistence indicates that the bureaus relied on automated electronic confirmations from furnishers rather than actual documentary validation. 

XXXX. Actions I Have Taken Beginning in early XXXX, I initiated formal disputes with all three credit bureaus pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ), providing written explanations of the inaccuracies and requesting the method of verification. My letters specifically asked : What system or data source was used to verify the disputed information. 

Whether e-OSCAR, manual review, or third-party verification was utilized. 

Copies of any original contracts, account statements, or assignment documents. 

The date and name of the individual or department responsible for verification. 

Each bureau acknowledged receipt but returned standardized responses within a few days stating that the information had been verified as accurate. No evidence or method-of-verification documentation was ever supplied. The speed and uniformity of these responses confirm that automated dispute processingrather than a meaningful reinvestigationwas used. 

Following those results, I contacted several furnishers directly, requesting full validation under FDCPA 809 ( b ). None of the furnishers, including the collection agencies, provided contracts, statements, or ownership proof. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, both third-party debt buyers, failed to produce assignment agreements or identify the original creditors, which violates their statutory duty to validate before continuing to collect or report. 

XXXX. Procedural Deficiencies by the Credit Bureaus The reinvestigations did not satisfy the FCRAs requirement of reasonableness. Each bureau relied on data returned through e-OSCAR, the industrys automated platform for dispute handling. In that system, a consumers detailed written complaint is often reduced to a two-digit code, transmitted to the furnisher electronically, and returned with a one-word response such as verified. This process does not involve examination of original evidence and therefore can not constitute a true reinvestigation under the statute. 

None of the bureaus provided : The actual documents used to verify the data. 

The names of the furnishers employees who reviewed the dispute. 

A timeline or audit trail of when and how the information was transmitted.

Any explanation of how they determined that the reporting was accurate.

The absence of these materials violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), which explicitly requires a consumer reporting agency to provide the method of verification upon request. 

XXXX. Inconsistencies and Evidence of Inaccuracy XXXX XXXX XXXX This account appears current yet shows XXXX XXXX late payments. Without billing statements or payment ledgers, there is no proof those delinquencies occurred. Reporting unverified lates diminishes credit scores and misrepresents the consumers payment behavior. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Closed XX/XX/XXXX with a {$0.00} balance. Nevertheless, the account continues to report several months of late history. Because there was no outstanding balance after closure, additional delinquencies are impossible, demonstrating factual inaccuracy. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The account remains open with a {$36000.00} balance, yet one 30-day late appears even though payments were made regularly. If posting delays or system errors occurred, they should have been corrected once verified ; the furnisher has shown no proof of genuine delinquency. 

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Despite being listed as Paid/Closed since XX/XX/XXXX, the bureaus continue to display XXXX XXXX lates. Reporting late history on an account that is fully satisfied violates the maximum possible accuracy standard. 

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  A {$510.00} collection account lacking any validation of ownership. The furnisher has not produced the purchase agreement or chain of assignment from the original creditor, leaving the legality of this account entirely unproven. 

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Another collection for {$340.00} without documentation of origin, ownership, or authorization to collect. Continuing to report it constitutes false representation under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ). 

XXXX. Harm Suffered Because of these unresolved inaccuracies, my credit reputation has been materially damaged. I have experienced denials of favorable credit terms, increased interest rates, and reputational harm. Every month that these unverifiable accounts remain, the damage compounds. The emotional strain of repeatedly disputing the same issues without genuine review is significant. 

The FCRA was enacted to prevent precisely this scenariowhere a consumer is trapped in an automated loop with no human accountability. When bureaus and furnishers fail to validate information yet continue to publish it, they undermine public confidence in the entire credit reporting system. 

XXXX. Violations of Law The conduct of the bureaus and furnishers violates multiple statutory provisions : FCRA 602 ( a ) Declares that inaccurate reporting undermines public confidence and harms consumers.

FCRA 607 ( b ) Requires reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.

FCRA 611 ( a ) Mandates a reasonable reinvestigation when accuracy is disputed.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) Requires disclosure of the method of verification.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Requires deletion of information that can not be verified.

FDCPA 809 ( b ) Prohibits collection or reporting of debts without validation.

FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Bars communication of false credit information.

The credit bureaus continued reporting without documentary verification and the furnishers refusal to produce validation collectively violate these federal standards.

7. Lack of Audit Trail and Transparency Despite my repeated requests, none of the bureaus have provided an audit trail showing how the disputes were handled. Such a record should include : Date and time of dispute receipt. 

Transmission to furnisher and response codes. 

Identification of the employee or system completing the verification. 

Any documentation supplied by the furnisher. 

Without this, the process is opaque and fails the FCRAs procedural-fairness intent. The CFPB has previously warned that automated dispute handling without evidence review constitutes non-compliance. 

XXXX. Sequence of Events and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : I obtained updated credit reports and identified inaccurate tradelines. 

XX/XX/XXXX : Sent formal dispute letters to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion requesting full validation and method of verification. 

XX/XX/XXXX : Received automated results : Verified as accurate. No evidence provided. 

XX/XX/XXXX : Mailed follow-up letters requesting audit trails and communication records. No substantive response. 

XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted furnishers directly ; none produced validation documents. 

XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Observed that derogatory data remained unchanged on updated credit files. 

XX/XX/XXXX : Filed this complaint seeking regulatory intervention by the CFPB. 

This timeline demonstrates that I have exhausted all consumer-level remedies. 

XXXX. Systemic Issues Illustrated My experience reflects a broader industry problem : over-reliance on e-OSCAR and automated verification. The system reduces complex disputes to short codes, causing substantive details to be ignored. Bureaus then treat furnishers electronic confirmations as definitive, even when those furnishers have not reviewed original documents. The CFPB has publicly recognized this as an area of concern ; my case exemplifies why. 

10. Requested Bureau and Furnisher Actions I have repeatedly requested that the credit bureaus and furnishers : Produce documentary proof supporting each derogatory mark. 

Provide the full method of verification and audit trail. 

Delete any item lacking validation. 

Mark all disputed accounts as consumer disputes this information.

Despite these reasonable requests, the entities involved have continued to report the same unverifiable data.

11. Importance of Regulatory Oversight The FCRA was designed to protect consumers from exactly this type of procedural negligence. However, without enforcement oversight, credit bureaus have little incentive to reform automated practices. Therefore, I am asking the CFPB to ensure that these entities adhere to the statutory requirements and to consider corrective or enforcement measures where necessary. 

XXXX. Supporting Facts by Account XXXX : No proof of late payments ; inaccurate delinquency notation. 

XXXX : Closed account still showing lates ; factual impossibility. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX : Payment history inconsistent with alleged delinquency. 

XXXX XXXX : Paid account still marked late ; misrepresentation of status. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unvalidated collection ; no assignment proof. 

XXXX : Unvalidated collection ; no original creditor identification. 

Each error represents both factual inaccuracy and procedural violation. 

13. Attempts to Resolve Without CFPB Involvement Prior to submitting this complaint, I made good-faith efforts to resolve the matter directly. My correspondence to all bureaus was clear, detailed, and compliant with federal guidelines. I attached copies of payment evidence where available and highlighted inconsistencies. No bureau acknowledged or addressed these materials. Instead, I received template responses that ignored the substance of my disputes. The same occurred with the furnishers, especially XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, who simply failed to respond at all. Having exhausted these avenues, CFPB intervention is now the only means of obtaining compliance. 

XXXX. Why This Constitutes Unfair Practice Publishing unverifiable information on a consumers credit report is an unfair and deceptive practice under federal law. Consumers rely on accurate reporting to secure housing, employment, and credit. By continuing to report information that can not be substantiated, the bureaus and furnishers mislead third-party users of credit data and place consumers at a systemic disadvantage. The resulting harm is both financial and reputational. 

XXXX. Ongoing Impact Even one inaccurate late payment can reduce a credit score by XXXX points or more ; multiple lates and collections can cause long-term denial of access to affordable credit. These accounts have caused measurable harm : denied auto-financing, increased insurance premiums, and rejection for certain housing applications. The continued presence of unverifiable data therefore constitutes ongoing damage. 

XXXX. My Expectations of the Parties Involved I expect each bureau and furnisher to : Conduct a manual, document-based reinvestigation ; Produce all validation materials to both me and the CFPB ; Remove all unverifiable information ; and Implement procedural reforms ensuring future compliance. 

Such steps would fulfill their obligations and restore accuracy to my credit record. 

XXXX. Why CFPB Intervention Is Necessary Individual consumers lack access to the systems and documentation that credit bureaus and furnishers control. Only a regulatory body like the CFPB can compel these entities to produce the audit trails and validation evidence required by law. I therefore ask that the Bureau ensure a full, transparent reinvestigation and confirm deletion of any item not supported by primary documentation. 

XXXX. Broader Consumer Protection Considerations This case illustrates how ordinary consumers can be disadvantaged by automated credit-reporting systems. I believe that regulatory review will not only correct my file but also highlight the need for industry-wide improvements : greater transparency in dispute processing, better consumer communication, and real accountability for furnishers who repeatedly verify data without evidence. 

XXXX. Summary of Events Disputed XXXX accounts citing lack of validation and factual inaccuracies. 

Received automated verified responses lacking evidence. 

Requested method of verification ; none provided. 

Contacted furnishers directly ; no validation received. 

Accounts remain on reports, continuing to cause harm. 

Filed CFPB complaint to obtain compliance with FCRA and FDCPA. 

XXXX. Desired Outcome I am seeking removal or correction of every unverifiable or inaccurate account, provision of full verification documentation, and confirmation that my credit files reflect only verified and accurate information. I am also requesting that the CFPB review the procedures used by the bureaus and furnishers to ensure compliance going forward. 

XXXX. Closing Statement My objective is not punitive ; it is corrective. I seek only a fair and lawful resolution consistent with the principles of accuracy and procedural fairness enshrined in federal law. The credit reporting agencies and furnishers must be required to substantiate the information they publish or cease reporting it entirely. Until that happens, my consumer rights remain unprotected, and the integrity of the credit reporting system remains compromised. 

In summary, multiple accounts have been reported and verified without documentation, violating the FCRAs standards for accuracy and reinvestigation. Despite my repeated, well-documented efforts to obtain validation, the entities involved have failed to comply. The continued presence of these unverifiable accounts has caused financial, reputational, and emotional harm. I respectfully request that the CFPB compel full compliance, require deletion of unverified data, and ensure that all future reporting on my credit file is accurate, complete, and supported by verifiable documentation.

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