Consumer complaint received 2025-09-11 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
State: HI

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is a follow-up to CFPB Case # XXXX. Portfolio Recovery Associates ( PRA ) response in that case was inadequate and failed to resolve the violations. 
I am submitting this new complaint to ensure the CFPB has my complete evidence for its review, as the prior case 's feedback portal did not allow for new attachments. 

Executive Summary PRA continues to report an account under the wrong legal name, XXXX XXXX, despite my government-issued ID proving my correct legal name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PRA falsely told the CFPB it had notified consumer reporting agencies of the dispute, yet my credit reports show PRA continued furnishing new monthly updates in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  without ever providing validation. 
Under FDCPA 1692g ( b ), this reporting of a disputed, unvalidated debt is ongoing illegal collection activity ; under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), it is inaccurate furnishing. PRAs actions are willful, violate both federal and Hawaii law, and reflect a recidivist pattern for which they have previously been penalized by the CFPB. 

Detailed Violations 1. Government ID Proves PRAs Reporting Is False Please review the attached Hawaii Drivers License ( Exhibit A ). It confirms my legal name as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX PRA continues reporting and corresponding under the inaccurate name XXXX XXXX XXXX Furnishing this inaccurate data after notification is a clear FCRA violation. 
2. PRA Misstates the Law on Cease & Desist PRA claimed that my cease communication request removed its duty to validate. This is false. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) requires validation before continuing collection activity once a consumer disputes. 1692c ( c ) governs only how contact occurs. PRA misrepresented the law to the CFPB to excuse its failure to validate.

3. PRA Continued Collection Activity Without Validation My credit reports show PRA reported this account monthly from XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ( with XXXX pending ). Each furnishing is : A separate act of collection activity under the FDCPA, and A separate furnishing of inaccurate information under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).

PRA told the CFPB it notified consumer reporting agencies that the account has been disputed. If it had complied with the law following that notification, it would have either suspended reporting or only updated the dispute status. Instead, PRA continued its normal monthly furnishing of account data in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX using credit reporting as a collection tool. 
Federal courts consistently recognize that furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies is collection activity because it pressures consumers to pay by damaging credit. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Therefore, each of these monthly transmissions is a separate and distinct violation of 1692g ( b ). Merely marking the account as disputed does not give PRA a license to continue pressuring me through credit reporting. 
4. PRA Has Not Provided Validation Despite three certified disputes, PRA refused to provide : The original signed agreement/application with XXXX, XXXX itemized accounting from charge to present, and The chain of title/assignment/forward-flow agreement proving PRAs ownership. 


Instead, they produced only generic letters and a data printout. That is not validation it is evasion. 
5. PRA Must Produce XXXX Records or Concede PRA claims it relied on business records from XXXX tying my SSN to XXXX XXXX. 
If XXXX actually provided such records, then XXXX itself is responsible for misreporting identity data. 


If PRA can not produce those records, it proves they misrepresented facts to CFPB. 


Either scenario requires deletion of this tradeline. 
6. PRA Must Verify With All Three CRAs PRA should be compelled to confirm my full legal name with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( using my SSN ) and provide those results. This will allow CFPB to compare PRAs claims against independent bureau records and resolve discrepancies. 
7. Hawaii Law Magnifies Liability and Damages PRAs willful non-compliance violates HRS 480-2 ( Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ) and HRS 443B ( Collection Agencies ). Each violation can carry statutory damages of up to {$10000.00}, and victims may recover treble damages for intentional acts. PRAs repeated misconductdespite multiple disputes and even after a formal CFPB complaintdemonstrates the willfulness required for these enhanced penalties. 
8. PRAs Conduct Is Part of a Recidivist Pattern This is not an isolated incident. PRAs conductfailing to validate, misstating the law, and reporting inaccuraciesappears to be a willful continuation of the same systemic practices for which CFPB penalized them {$27.00} XXXX in XXXX. This demonstrates a recidivist corporate culture requiring renewed and stringent enforcement.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief