Consumer complaint received 2025-05-25 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Atlanticus Services Corporation
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This complaint involves willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ), and the CARD Act by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

These violations include : Furnishing tradeline data without legal ownership or authority Reporting overpaid accounts as settled for less Inflating balances with post-closure fees Accepting payments without issuing a final agreement Failing to verify data upon dispute and reinforcing inaccurate information I made {$1800.00} in payments after both accounts were closed, yet I was never provided with a settlement agreement or proof of ownership. Despite overpayment, both accounts were misclassified as settled for less than full balance and continue to report derogatory statuses, even into XXXX and XXXX. 

This complaint demands deletion, correction, refund, and regulatory enforcement. 

Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX account closed XX/XX/XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX account closed XX/XX/XXXX : I made initial payments totaling {$400.00} to both accounts XXXX- XX/XX/XXXX : made payments under the pretense of settlement agreement XXXX XXXX : Received repeated collection emails with fluctuating balances XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Disputes submitted to creditors and credit bureaus XX/XX/XXXX : Received formal response denying all wrongdoing despite documented overpayments. 

Post-Closure Payments : XXXX XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$100.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$41.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$54.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$55.00} XX/XX/XXXX Total Paid : {$1000.00} Original Balance : {$430.00} Overpayment : {$560.00} XXXX XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$100.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$55.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$91.00} XX/XX/XXXX Total Paid : {$890.00} Original Balance : {$440.00} Overpayment : {$450.00} Violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1. False Settled for Less Reporting Both accounts are listed on my Credit Reports as : Paid in settlement Paid in full for less than full balance Yet I paid more than the full balance, and there was no finalized settlement agreement ever provided. These designations are factually false and materially harmful. 
FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete tradeline data FDCPA 807 : Misrepresenting debt terms or resolution UDAAP : Abusive and deceptive credit classification 2. Contradictions in Creditor Letters XX/XX/XXXX : We are the original creditor the account was not sold. 

XX/XX/XXXX : We do not provide customers a letter confirming a pending settlement agreement Until paid in full, we will continue to contact you. 

XX/XX/XXXX : No compensation is warranted. 
The tradeline is reporting correctly. 

Yet : My credit report shows settled months before these statements No written settlement ever disclosed Payments accepted after closure with contradictory balances ( {$200.00} {$160.00} {$210.00} {$130.00} ) These inconsistencies confirm systemic abuse, regulatory evasion, and a failure to comply with consumer protection law. 

3. Illegal Re-Aging and Ongoing Status Updates Credit reports reflects : Last payment date : XX/XX/XXXX Status updated : XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX Accounts closed in XXXX can not legally update with new delinquency notations. Re-aging is deceptive and violates : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) XXXX XXXX Reporting Guidelines UDAAP : Ongoing credit harm post-closure. Illegal Re-Aging and Ongoing Status Updates Proof of Unlawful Furnishing and Unauthorized Collection XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This section outlines clear violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXalong with their servicer and portfolio acquirer, XXXX XXXX XXXXfor unlawfully furnishing credit data and collecting post-closure payments without legal standing or ownership documentation. These actions violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and UDAAP provisions under federal law. 

Supporting Evidence and Documentation : 1. SEC Filings ( XXXX ) : Multiple XXXX filings from XXXX XXXX ( including those dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) confirm that : Private label and general purpose card products are originated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, collectively our bank partners. 
We [ XXXX ] acquire these receivables from our bank partners and also purchase receivables portfolios from third parties. 
2. Amended and Restated Program Management Agreement ( Filed XX/XX/XXXX ) : Documented in the Exhibits section of the XXXX, this agreement between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and Atlanticus Services Corporation further confirms XXXX  authority to service, collect, and control receivables post-origination. 
3. Violations Based on This Evidence : XXXX is not the legal owner after origination, yet continues to appear as the data furnisher to XXXX  and XXXX. 
I made {$1800.00} in post-closure payments in XXXX after both accounts were closed in late XXXXwithout ever receiving : Proof of legal ownership by the collecting entity Debt validation Formal settlement terms or final statements 4. Failure to Disclose Ownership or Authority : XXXX, despite being the servicing entity per SEC filings, never disclosed its legal standing to collect. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  continued reporting without any proof of retained ownershipa direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 

Justification for Including XXXX XXXX XXXX I am including XXXX XXXX XXXX in this complaint because publicly filed SEC documentsincluding multiple XXXX filings and the Amended Program Management Agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXconfirm that XXXX acquires and services the receivables originated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Despite this, I was never informed that XXXX owned or managed my account, nor was I provided with any formal debt validation or ownership disclosure. I made post-closure payments totaling {$1800.00} in XXXX, without receiving a written settlement agreement or proof of legal collection authority. If XXXX is the entity that acquired and serviced the debtas the filings confirmthen they are directly responsible for the abusive billing, deceptive settlement process, and lack of transparency. Furthermore, if they enabled or directed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to furnish tradeline data post-origination, they are also liable for violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and UDAAP. Their failure to disclose their role or ownership while collecting payments and damaging my credit profile warrants regulatory investigation and enforcement. 

Violations Include : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishing unverifiable information FDCPA 807, 809 : Misrepresenting debt status, failure to validate UDAAP : Deceptive and abusive billing and collection conduct This complaint also extends to the XXXX major credit reporting agenciesXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXfor their failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by continuing to furnish and verify inaccurate and unvalidated information after multiple disputes. 

Violations by the Credit Bureaus : 1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & ( a ) ( 2 ) I submitted detailed disputes to all three credit bureaus challenging the accuracy, ownership, and furnishing authority of the tradelines reported under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Despite this, each bureau returned a generic result stating the account was verified as accurate without providing any : Documentation showing who legally owns the debt Method of verification Chain of title Record of the entity that validated the data This constitutes a willful failure to perform a reasonable reinvestigation as required under the FCRA. 
2. Failure to Provide the Method of Verification FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Upon my request for the method used to verify the disputed information, no bureau provided any records, documentation, or confirmation of what evidence was reviewed or who verified it. 
Simply restating that the furnisher confirmed the information does not satisfy the legal requirement to verify the accuracy and validity of the data reported. 
3. Reinforcing Inaccurate Data Without Evidence By labeling the tradelines as verified and accurate after receiving evidence that : The accounts were closed Payments exceeded the balance owed No creditor could provide a signed settlement agreement or ownership documents The bureaus knowingly reinforced false and harmful information that has materially impacted my creditworthiness. 

Resulting Harm : My credit score has been damaged by the presence of these tradelines. 
I have been denied financing opportunities. 
I have endured prolonged emotional and financial stress due to the bureaus failure to act on clear evidence and their reliance on unverifiable confirmations from the furnishers. 

The bureaus played an active role in reinforcing credit damage, enabling unauthorized furnishing, and failing to protect consumer rights under federal law. 
of these accounts post-origination. 


Requested Relief I respectfully request the following : 1. Immediate removal of both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX tradelines from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2. Full reimbursement of {$1800.00} in post-closure payments made without settlement terms 3. Regulatory enforcement and penalties against XXXX and XXXX  for deceptive billing and unlawful credit furnishing 4. Civil fines and oversight against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for failure to investigate and correct 5. Damages for emotional distress and credit harm, in line with federal consumer law Affirmation I do not dispute that these accounts once existed. I dispute how they were handled after closurewhen I made significant payments without disclosure, was denied validation, misclassified as having settled for less, and subjected to false credit reporting. These actions were deceptive, unsupported by documentation, and clearly violate the FCRA, FDCPA, UDAAP, and CARD Act. 

If this is not resolved through regulatory action, I will escalate the matter with legal representation to pursue all remedies available under federal Requested Relief

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation