Consumer complaint received 2025-07-24 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: MI

Complaint narrative:
Supplemental Challenge CFPB Complaint Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental complaint against Equifax regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX. This filing also references a pending CFPB dispute submitted XX/XX/XXXX. 

Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX response is unacceptable, factually inaccurate, and reflects a complete failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

The mailed notice claims : We have verified that this item belongs to you. Additional information has been provided from the original source. 

And that : The following fields have been modified : additional information, high credit, date of major delinquency, 1st reported, historical account information, account history. 

However, the account history reflected in this XX/XX/XXXX report is identical to Equifaxs previous results from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, under dispute reports # XXXX and # XXXX. No actual modifications or data corrections have occurred meaning the XX/XX/XXXX report is a false representation of reinvestigation results. 

Equifax Failed to Investigate Ignored Key Evidence and Relied Entirely on the Furnisher Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX mailed dispute results ( Report # XXXX ) appear to be a formal confirmation of the same findings Equifax issued in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute. Both responses claim that the account has been verified and updated based on information received from the furnisher. 

However, this account was not updated in any factual way. 

In fact : The account history remains identical to the results issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( Reports # XXXX and # XXXX ) No changes were made to the core issue in dispute the false charge-off status and notations and the fabricated {$2500.00} balance. 
Equifax relied on the alleged furnisher, XXXX XXXX, despite their own documentation being internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, and legally invalid. 

Most concerning is that Equifax has already been notified and has access to the actual promissory note and full bank payment history, which were submitted as part of my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint ( still under investigation ). 

Those documents prove : The loan required only 18 biweekly payments not 21 ; I made over 20 verified payments totaling more than {$3100.00}, which exceeded the original loan obligation of {$2700.00} ; XXXX XXXX  has admitted to multiple third-party transfers, meaning they can not lawfully validate or furnish this data without providing full documentation of re-assignment or re-purchase which has never been done. 

Despite this overwhelming evidence, Equifax has made no effort to correct or even acknowledge these facts in either the XX/XX/XXXX mailed response or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB update. 

Equifaxs claim that additional information was provided by the original source has no foundation or supported evidence, particularly when : No actual updates occurred to the tradeline, None of the consumer submitted documentation was reviewed or addressed, and The data being verified is false based on the actual terms of the loan agreement, verified payment history, and the timeline of events. 

Even more troubling who exactly is Equifax identifying as the original source? Because XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have both confirmed in writing that this account was sent to multiple third-party collection agencies. And while XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have avoided explicitly stating they relinquished their rights, basic credit reporting standards which Equifax is well aware of makes this fact clear : When an account is placed with a third-party collection agency, the original creditor can no longer legally validate, verify, or furnish data on that debt unless they have properly reassigned the account and can produce documentation of that transfer. 

Equifax has not received and has not reviewed any such documentation showing that XXXX or XXXX currently have legal standing authority to furnish or validate this account. Yet Equifax continues to treat their data as valid without evidence, which constitutes willful negligence under the FCRA. 

Equifaxs Own Credit Reporting Contradicts the Charge-Off and Confirms a Failure to Investigate Equifaxs own data shows that this account was never late during the life of the loan. 

Specifically : The loan term is listed as 9 months, Payments are shown from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX totaling 10 months of consistent, on-time payments, No delinquencies or missed payments are reflected during this time. 

This directly contradicts the claim that the account became delinquent and was legally charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. If the loan ended in XX/XX/XXXX ( based on the end date in the Promissory note ) all payments were made on time as confirmed by Equifaxs reporting there is no lawful or logical basis for the charge-off. 

Instead of recognizing this contradiction and correcting the tradeline, Equifax repeated XXXX version of events without question, even though their own records refute it. This failure to reconcile internal data with furnisher claims is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ), which require maximum possible accuracy and a meaningful reinvestigation. 


XXXX  and XXXX  Have Admitted to Multiple Ownership Transfers Equifax Ignores This In the letters I submitted with my CFPB complaints, XXXX and XXXX  both admit the account was sent to third-party collectors on multiple occasions. This means : They relinquished their right to report the tradeline, Yet Equifax continues to list XXXX XXXX as the active creditor, With no notation of any third-party collection placement from XXXX through XXXX a blatant omission that violates FCRA 623 and 607 ( b ). 

Even if the account was allegedly returned to XXXX, they are legally required to provide chain of title documentation proving : The transfer ( s ) out, The transfer ( s ) back in, and A current, lawful right to furnish data.

Equifax has no record of these transfers and never received or verified such documentation meaning the account is unverifiable.

A Charged-Off Account Can not Also Be Outstanding and In Collections In a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX corporate representative stated the account is : Currently in collections with TrueAccord and still has an outstanding balance. 

Equifaxs credit report lists the account as : Charged Off, Past Due, Still owed to XXXX XXXX, And not associated with any collection agency. 

This is a FCRA violation. An account can not legally be : Charged off, In active collection, Reported with a balance by the original creditor, all at the same time, with no collection agency listed. 

Equifax is knowingly reporting contradictory and deceptive information, and it is harming my creditworthiness. 

The Charge-Off Is False, Unsupported, and Violates Federal Law Beyond the internal contradictions in Equifaxs reporting , the entire charge-off is legally invalid based on documentation Ive already submitted including : The promissory note, which confirms the loan required 18 biweekly payments, My bank statements, which prove I made 20+ payments totaling over {$3100.00}, exceeding the scheduled repayment of {$2700.00}, And FinWises own letters, which fail to explain how a fully paid loan was ever charged off.

Even XXXX claim that I made 14 of 21 payments is false and unsupported not only because the loan was never structured for 21 payments, but also because even 14 payments would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.

There is no valid charge-off amount, no missed payment on record, and no delinquency reported during the life of the loan. Therefore, Equifaxs continued reporting of a {$2500.00} charge-off balance is not just inaccurate it is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and has caused me long-term financial harm.

Intent to Sue and Demand for Deletion and Damages Equifax has now had : Multiple disputes filed over a five-year period Access to detailed documentation, including the original promissory note and consumer financial payment history Letters from XXXX XXXX and XXXX admitting the account was transferred to third-party collectors Internal credit reporting data that clearly contradicts the charge-off status and alleged delinquency Despite all this, Equifax has refused to correct or delete the account, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations have caused serious damage to my creditworthiness, limited my access to financing, and created emotional and financial hardship.

I am preparing to pursue legal action under FCRA 616 and 617, which allow recovery of statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.

Below is a breakdown of the violations, responsible parties, and the monetary value of damages I intend to pursue if this account is not permanently deleted.

FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax continued to report a {$2500.00} charge-off balance despite : Its own records showing 10 months of on-time payments, A loan term of 9 months, and No reported delinquency prior to charge-off.

Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ) : {$1000.00} Actual harm : Denial of credit and suppressed FICO score Claimed amount : {$5000.00} in actual and statutory damages FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to Reinvestigate Consumer Disputes Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax relied solely on the furnishers unverifiable narrative, ignored consumer submitted evidence, and issued repeated verified results without addressing : My bank statements proving full payment, The promissory note showing only 18 required payments, The internal contradiction between Equifaxs reporting and the charge-off claim.

Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per dispute cycle ) : {$2000.00} Actual harm : Ongoing credit damage from XXXX Claimed amount : {$10000.00} in total damages FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : FinWise and OppLoans admitted the account was placed with multiple third-party collectors. Equifax has no documentation verifying any legal reassignment, yet continues to report the account under XXXX XXXX. 

Evidence : XXXX  letters ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX  corporate recorded phone call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming current placement with XXXX  Absence of chain-of-title documentation provided to Equifax Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ) : {$1000.00} Punitive damages for willful noncompliance : $ XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate Violator ( s ) : XXXX XXXX, XXXX Violation XXXX Reported that I made 14 of 21 payments directly refuted by the loan agreement and bank records Supplied a fabricated charge-off balance of {$2500.00}, despite verified overpayment Failed to report third-party collection transfers, violating data integrity and transparency Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per furnisher violation ) : {$2000.00} Claimed actual harm : Damaged credit score, financing rejections, inflated interest rates Claimed amount : {$8000.00} in statutory, actual, and punitive damages Total Claim ( If Litigation Is Pursued ) : FCRA statutory damages : {$6000.00} Actual economic harm ( credit denials, interest rate increases ) : {$10000.00} Punitive damages for willful violations and negligent reinvestigations : {$15000.00} Attorneys fees and legal costs : XXXX  Total claim : $ XXXX Equifax has had multiple chances to investigate this account properly and lawfully correct or delete it. If this reporting is not removed, I will take further legal action and seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages as outlined. This complaint will be forwarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and my State Attorney General for additional review and investigation. 

Supplemental CFPB Complaint Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental complaint against Equifax regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the FinWise Bank/OppLoans tradeline. This filing also references a pending CFPB dispute submitted XX/XX/XXXX. 

Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX response is unacceptable, factually inaccurate, and reflects a complete failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

The mailed notice claims : We have verified that this item belongs to you. Additional information has been provided from the original source. 

And that : The following fields have been modified : additional information, high credit, date of major delinquency, 1st reported, historical account information, account history. 

However, the account history reflected in this XX/XX/XXXX report is identical to Equifaxs previous results from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, under dispute reports # XXXX and # XXXX. No actual modifications or data corrections have occurred meaning the XX/XX/XXXX report is a false representation of reinvestigation results. 

Equifax Failed to Investigate Ignored Key Evidence and Relied Entirely on the Furnisher Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX mailed dispute results ( Report # XXXX ) appear to be a formal confirmation of the same findings Equifax issued in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute. Both responses claim that the account has been verified and updated based on information received from the furnisher. 

However, this account was not updated in any factual way. 

In fact : The account history remains identical to the results issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( Reports # XXXX and # XXXX ) No changes were made to the core issue in dispute the false charge-off status and notations and the fabricated {$2500.00} balance. 
Equifax relied on the alleged furnisher, XXXX XXXX, despite their own documentation being internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, and legally invalid. 

Most concerning is that Equifax has already been notified and has access to the actual promissory note and full bank payment history, which were submitted as part of my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint ( still under investigation ). 

Those documents prove : The loan required only 18 biweekly payments not 21 ; I made over 20 verified payments totaling more than {$3100.00}, which exceeded the original loan obligation of {$2700.00} ; XXXX XXXX has admitted to multiple third-party transfers, meaning they can not lawfully validate or furnish this data without providing full documentation of re-assignment or re-purchase which has never been done. 

Despite this overwhelming evidence, Equifax has made no effort to correct or even acknowledge these facts in either the XX/XX/XXXX mailed response or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB update. 

Equifaxs claim that additional information was provided by the original source has no foundation or supported evidence, particularly when : No actual updates occurred to the tradeline, None of the consumer submitted documentation was reviewed or addressed, and The data being verified is false based on the actual terms of the loan agreement, verified payment history, and the timeline of events. 

Even more troubling who exactly is Equifax identifying as the original source? Because XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have both confirmed in writing that this account was sent to multiple third-party collection agencies. And while XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have avoided explicitly stating they relinquished their rights, basic credit reporting standards which Equifax is well aware of makes this fact clear : When an account is placed with a third-party collection agency, the original creditor can no longer legally validate, verify, or furnish data on that debt unless they have properly reassigned the account and can produce documentation of that transfer. 

Equifax has not received and has not reviewed any such documentation showing that XXXX or XXXX currently have legal standing authority to furnish or validate this account. Yet Equifax continues to treat their data as valid without evidence, which constitutes willful negligence under the FCRA. 

Equifaxs Own Credit Reporting Contradicts the Charge-Off and Confirms a Failure to Investigate Equifaxs own data shows that this account was never late during the life of the loan. 

Specifically : The loan term is listed as 9 months, Payments are shown from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX totaling 10 months of consistent, on-time payments, No delinquencies or missed payments are reflected during this time. 

This directly contradicts the claim that the account became delinquent and was legally charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. If the loan ended in XX/XX/XXXX ( based on the end date in the Promissory note ) all payments were made on time as confirmed by Equifaxs reporting there is no lawful or logical basis for the charge-off. 

Instead of recognizing this contradiction and correcting the tradeline, Equifax repeated XXXX version of events without question, even though their own records refute it. This failure to reconcile internal data with furnisher claims is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ), which require maximum possible accuracy and a meaningful reinvestigation. 


XXXX  and XXXX Have Admitted to Multiple Ownership Transfers Equifax Ignores This In the letters I submitted with my CFPB complaints, XXXX and XXXX  both admit the account was sent to third-party collectors on multiple occasions. This means : They relinquished their right to report the tradeline, Yet Equifax continues to list XXXX XXXX  as the active creditor, With no notation of any third-party collection placement from XXXX through XXXX a blatant omission that violates FCRA 623 and 607 ( b ).

Even if the account was allegedly returned to XXXX, they are legally required to provide chain of title documentation proving : The transfer ( s ) out, The transfer ( s ) back in, and A current, lawful right to furnish data. 

Equifax has no record of these transfers and never received or verified such documentation meaning the account is unverifiable. 

A Charged-Off Account Can not Also Be Outstanding and In Collections In a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX corporate representative stated the account is : Currently in collections with XXXX  and still has an outstanding balance. 

Equifaxs credit report lists the account as : Charged Off, Past Due, Still owed to XXXX XXXX, And not associated with any collection agency. 

This is a FCRA violation. An account can not legally be : Charged off, In active collection, Reported with a balance by the original creditor, all at the same time, with no collection agency listed. 

Equifax is knowingly reporting contradictory and deceptive information, and it is harming my creditworthiness. 

The Charge-Off Is False, Unsupported, and Violates Federal Law Beyond the internal contradictions in Equifaxs reporting , the entire charge-off is legally invalid based on documentation Ive already submitted including : The promissory note, which confirms the loan required 18 biweekly payments, My bank statements, which prove I made 20+ payments totaling over {$3100.00}, exceeding the scheduled repayment of {$2700.00}, And XXXX  own letters, which fail to explain how a fully paid loan was ever charged off. 

Even XXXX  claim that I made 14 of 21 payments is false and unsupported not only because the loan was never structured for 21 payments, but also because even 14 payments would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.

There is no valid charge-off amount, no missed payment on record, and no delinquency reported during the life of the loan. Therefore, Equifaxs continued reporting of a {$2500.00} charge-off balance is not just inaccurate it is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and has caused me long-term financial harm. 

Intent to Sue and Demand for Deletion and Damages Equifax has now had : Multiple disputes filed over a five-year period Access to detailed documentation, including the original promissory note and consumer financial payment history Letters from XXXX XXXX  and XXXX admitting the account was transferred to third-party collectors Internal credit reporting data that clearly contradicts the charge-off status and alleged delinquency Despite all this, Equifax has refused to correct or delete the account, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations have caused serious damage to my creditworthiness, limited my access to financing, and created emotional and financial hardship.

I am preparing to pursue legal action under FCRA 616 and 617, which allow recovery of statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.

Below is a breakdown of the violations, responsible parties, and the monetary value of damages I intend to pursue if this account is not permanently deleted.

FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax continued to report a {$2500.00} charge-off balance despite : Its own records showing 10 months of on-time payments, A loan term of 9 months, and No reported delinquency prior to charge-off.

Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ) : {$1000.00} Actual harm : Denial of credit and suppressed XXXX score Claimed amount : {$5000.00} in actual and statutory damages FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to Reinvestigate Consumer Disputes Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax relied solely on the furnishers unverifiable narrative, ignored consumer submitted evidence, and issued repeated verified results without addressing : My bank statements proving full payment, The promissory note showing only 18 required payments, The internal contradiction between Equifaxs reporting and the charge-off claim.

Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per dispute cycle ) : {$2000.00} Actual harm : Ongoing credit damage from XXXX Claimed amount : {$10000.00} in total damages FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : FinWise and OppLoans admitted the account was placed with multiple third-party collectors. Equifax has no documentation verifying any legal reassignment, yet continues to report the account under XXXX XXXX. 

Evidence : XXXX  letters ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX  corporate recorded phone call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming current placement with XXXX  Absence of chain-of-title documentation provided to Equifax Statutory damages ( XXXX XXXX {$1000.00} ) : {$1000.00} Punitive damages for willful noncompliance : $ XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate Violator ( s ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Violation XXXX Reported that I made 14 of 21 payments directly refuted by the loan agreement and bank records Supplied a fabricated charge-off balance of {$2500.00}, despite verified overpayment Failed to report third-party collection transfers, violating data integrity and transparency Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per furnisher violation ) : {$2000.00} Claimed actual harm : Damaged credit score, financing rejections, inflated interest rates Claimed amount : {$8000.00} in statutory, actual, and punitive damages Total Claim ( If Litigation Is Pursued ) : FCRA statutory damages : {$6000.00} Actual economic harm ( credit denials, interest rate increases ) : {$10000.00} Punitive damages for willful violations and negligent reinvestigations : {$15000.00} Attorneys fees and legal costs : TBD Total claim : $ XXXX Equifax has had multiple chances to investigate this account properly and lawfully correct or delete it. If this reporting is not removed, I will take further legal action and seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages as outlined. This complaint will be forwarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and my State Attorney General for additional review and investigation.

I demand that Equifax permanently delete this account from my credit report, as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) and XXXX XXXX compliance standards.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation