Consumer complaint received 2025-11-27 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this detailed response to address the Comenity Bank letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the Victorias Secret credit card account ending in XXXX. I have thoroughly reviewed the companys response contained in the letter found on page 1 and page 2 of the uploaded document, and I must firmly reiterate that this account does not belong to me, I have never opened or authorized any Victorias Secret credit card, and I have filed an official FTC Identity Theft Report to document the fraudulent nature of this account. 

Despite Comenity Bank stating that they verified the reporting as accurate and correctly submitted to the credit bureaus, I must emphasize that the company has not provided any proof, documentation, or evidence that I am the individual who opened this account. Their letter does not contain : A signed application Any original documentation Any identity verification Any proof of my authorization Any contract or agreement Any supporting records connecting me to this credit card The absence of these documents is significant because the central issue in my dispute is non-ownership, not merely disagreement over reporting details. Their letter simply states that they reported the account as a charge-off and that they sold it to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX However, reporting an account as a charge-off does not mean the account is valid or belongs to the consumer being reported. Comenity has not shown any evidence that the account is legitimately mine. 

Their letter acknowledges that the account was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and that they are no longer the creditor. This information appears on page 1 of the letter where they state : Your account charged off due to nonpayment on XX/XX/XXXX. We sold your account to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 
However, selling an account does not absolve Comenity of their legal duty to verify that the information they furnished was accurate before reporting it. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), a furnisher must ensure maximum possible accuracy under 607 ( b ) and must correct or delete information they can not verify. 

In my case, Comenity has not verified ownership. They have not proven that I opened the account. They have not proven that I used the account. They have not demonstrated that I authorized any transactions or signed any application. Instead, they simply restated that they reported the account as a charge-off. This does not address the root problem : the account is NOT mine. 

Comenity claims in their letter that they verified were reporting the account correctly, but providing a procedural statement is not the same as providing documentation. Their letter, as shown on page 1, simply explains how the credit reporting agencies may display the account and that the account is in dispute. This does not demonstrate ownership, nor does it satisfy the requirements for validation under the FCRA or FDCPA. Simply marking the account as disputed is not sufficient when the account itself is fraudulent or misattributed. 

I want the CFPB to note that I already filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, which formally documents that this account is not mine. Filing an FTC report is not a step I take lightly ; it is a legal declaration under penalty of perjury that I did not open or authorize this account. I filed the FTC report because Comenitys reporting is incorrect and does not reflect my true credit history. 

A fair and legally-required response from Comenity should have included : A copy of the original application for this account Documentation showing the identity used to open the account A detailed verification process showing how they determined the account belonged to me Records showing the date, location, and authorization method Any IP-based records or in-person authentication A signature or digital authorization attributable to me None of these materials were provided. The letter Comenity sent merely states their conclusionnot the evidence supporting their conclusion. Because no proof of ownership has been provided, their reporting can not be considered accurate under federal law. 

Additionally, Comenitys letter directs me to contact XXXX XXXX XXXX for further information. XXXX involvement does not change the fact that Comenity originated the account, and Comenity is the party responsible for proving that the consumer ( me ) actually opened the account. Under FCRA 623, a furnisher must have a reasonable basis for the information they report, and they must correct or delete information they can not verify. Since Comenity can not verify this account, the accurate and lawful step is deletion. 

Comenity does acknowledge my continued disagreement by stating in the letter on page 1 : However, due to continued disagreement, weve notified the credit reporting agencies that the reporting is disputed by the account holder.

However, this again does not resolve the core problem, which is identity, authorization, and ownership. Reporting something you can not validate and then marking it as disputed does not cure the inaccuracy. It simply acknowledges disagreement, but it does not satisfy their obligations under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. 

If Comenity can not show documentation linking me to the account, they can not continue reporting it under my name. This is especially important because Comenity states in the letter that the account was reported as charged off. A charge-off is one of the most severe derogatory entries on a credit file and directly affects a consumers ability to secure credit, housing, employment, and insurance. A charge-off can not remain when the account is fraudulent or misattributed. 

Comenity mentions that I should contact the credit reporting agencies if I have concerns about how the account appears. My concern is not about how they display the information. My concern is about the existence of the information. This account is not mine, and therefore it should not be reported at all, regardless of display formatting. 

A company can not shift responsibility to the credit bureaus when the core issue is the accuracy and ownership of the reported data. Comenity is attempting to separate themselves from the problem by pointing to the credit bureaus, but the credit bureaus only display what Comenity furnished. The responsibility begins with the furnisher. 

I also want to highlight that I have now had to file multiple disputes and provide supporting documentation, including the FTC Identity Theft Report, because Comenitys reporting continues to harm me. This demonstrates that they have not adequately investigated my dispute, contrary to what they claim. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB require Comenity to : Provide original documentation proving I opened the Victorias Secret account ending in XXXX or If they can not produce such documentation, remove all reporting related to this account Issue a correction to all credit reporting agencies Notify any third-party debt buyer ( including XXXX ) that the account was disputed and determined to be identity theft Cease and desist from any further reporting of this account Provide written confirmation to me that the account has been removed Given the evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, the only lawful and fair resolution is deletion. Comenitys letter, as shown on page 1 and page 2 of the provided PDF, does not contain the verification required under federal consumer protection laws. 

To reiterate : This account is not mine. 
I did not open it. 
I did not authorize it. 
I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report to document the fraud. 
Comenity has provided no validation proving ownership. 

I ask that the CFPB intervene to ensure that my rights under the FCRA are upheld and that the inaccurate reporting is removed entirely.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation