Consumer complaint received 2025-10-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal rebuttal regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) response dated XX/XX/XXXX to my original complaint. Their reply does not sufficiently resolve my concerns, contains contradictions, fails to provide substantiated documentation, and demonstrates an ongoing pattern of inaccurate and incomplete reporting that violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Below are the detailed issues and discrepancies with XXXX response : 1. Identity Reporting Omission of Suffix III XXXX admits in writing that my account is reported without the suffix III. They dismiss this as a minor issue, but under the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ), furnishers must ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer information. Omitting the suffix creates a risk of mixed-file errors with other individuals in my family ( Sr., Jr., etc. ), which could lead to serious identity and credit reporting issues. XXXX shifts responsibility to me to update with the credit bureaus, but as the furnisher, XXXX bears the legal obligation to ensure accuracy at the source. 2. Bi-Weekly vs. Monthly Payment Reporting XXXX admits my original contract required bi-weekly payments, yet claims their reporting system converts this into monthly reporting intervals. This practice creates a misleading appearance of delinquency or skipped payments and violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting inaccurate information. A standard framework can not override the contractual reality of how payments were agreed upon. Accuracy under the law is not negotiable. 3. Repossession & Deficiency Balance Contradiction XXXX states the vehicle was repossessed on XX/XX/XXXX, and claims that repossession fees were fully covered by the auction proceeds. However, they also state that I owe a deficiency balance of {$19000.00}. If the repossession fees were fully covered, XXXX must explain how a nearly {$20000.00} deficiency balance remains. They provided no documentation of : Auction sale price Application of sale proceeds Fees deducted Exact calculation of the alleged deficiency Under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and UCC Article 9-610 & 9-616, furnishers are required to provide an accurate accounting of a deficiency balance. Failure to do so renders their reporting unverifiable. 4. Possible Illegal Re-Aging of the Account XXXX states the charge-off may remain on my credit report for up to seven years from the date of first delinquency. However, they fail to identify what date they are using as the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). If they are using the repossession date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) rather than the true first missed payment date, this constitutes illegal re-aging under the FCRA. This would artificially extend the reporting period beyond the 7-year limit allowed by law, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ). 5. Duplicative Reporting This account is being reported twice on my credit report, inflating the damage to my credit profile. Duplicate reporting is a violation of the FCRAs maximum possible accuracy standard. XXXX failed to address or correct this issue in their response, ignoring the core of my complaint. 6. Shifting Responsibility to Credit Bureaus XXXX claims they only furnish updates every 30 days and that it is up to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion to determine how and when the information is posted. This is misleading. Under the FCRA, furnishers are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the information they report ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). XXXX can not shift liability to the credit bureaus after submitting incomplete or inaccurate data. 7. Failure to Substantiate or Provide Verification XXXX repeatedly states they are required to report only accurate and verifiable information, yet they failed to provide any actual verification documents, including : Signed Truth-in-Lending disclosures Payment history records Repossession order Auction sale documents Deficiency calculation breakdown Without producing these, their response does not meet the standard of a reasonable investigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation