Consumer complaint received 2025-05-20 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Despite having an active dispute and formal complaints open with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB XXXX ID : XXXX ) in XXXX and the New York Attorney General ( Intake # XXXX ) more recently ; regarding a {$2100.00} charge for services not rendered, Equifax published new derogatory XXXX from XXXX Bank on XX/XX/year> including a 90-day late mark, over-limit status, and account closure. These updates only appeared in my credit report after I escalated to the NY AG, further compounding the harm and emotional distress caused by XXXX negligence. I was never informed in advance of the account closure and only discovered it through my credit monitoring. XXXX system also prevents disputes of closed tradelines, forcing me to bring this to the CFPB. 

Why this is a problem : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ), furnishers must notify CRAs of ongoing disputes and furnish accurate information. Equifax failed to flag this account as disputed.

Per FCRA 611 ( a ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of consumer disputes and remove or correct any inaccurate information. Equifax instead verified punitive updates without investigation.

By refusing to allow disputes on closed accounts, Equifax is obstructing my right to challenge inaccuracies, contrary to FCRAs requirement for accessible dispute processes.

Additional Inconsistencies in Equifax Reporting : Equifaxs reporting throughout this period has seemed not only retaliatory but wildly inconsistent, undermining any claim that a proper reinvestigation took place. For example : On XX/XX/year>, I received a mailed verification notice from Equifax ( Confirmation # XXXX ) stating pays as agreed, no past-due amount, and no date of first delinquency. 

Yet when I view the tradeline online, it suddenly shows a first delinquency date of XX/XX/year> ; a full day before Equifax itself had confirmed there was none. 

XXXX and XXXX entries are displayed with green check marks for Paid on time, but XXXX inexplicably appears as 60 days past due, despite the mailed verification notice saying it was current as of XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX then jumps to 90 days past due, even though I was actively disputing the account through the CFPB at that time, and had not incurred any new delinquencies. 

Moreover, after all these alleged past-due dates accumulate, the report lists only a single past-due balance of {$190.00} in XXXX; making no sense of the incremental late-fee cycle XXXX enforced. 

These contradictory data points show Equifax did not conduct a reasonable, coherent reinvestigation. Instead, they simply regurgitated punitive, inconsistent information supplied by XXXX without any factual basis. * And in an attachemnt I have provided, you can also see that the account was in dispute in XXXX beacuse there was no minimum reflecting the charge in question ; just a {$2.00} amount reflecting part of a late fee they did not properly remove from XXXX when the account was also in dispute but was was targeted XXXX a late fee still. *

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief