Consumer complaint received 2025-07-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is agains XXXX XXXX  and the CRAs for continuous reporting of unvalidated and unverified debt. 


We received your complaint. Thank you. 
We will review your complaint. Depending on what we find, we will typically : Send your complaint to the company for a response ; or Send your complaint to another state or federal agency, or help you get in touch with your state or local consumer protection office ; or Let you know if we need more information to continue our work. 
YOUR COMPLAINT Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX Attempted Collection on Unverified and Invalidated Debt in Violation of FDCPA, FCRA, and Florida Consumer Law To Whom It May Concern : I am filing this complaint to report repeated violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX and its affiliated debt buyer, XXXX XXXX XXXX, related to the attempted collection and credit reporting of disputed debts that have never been lawfully validated as required under federal and Florida consumer protection statutes. Complaint Summary : Invalid Debt Verification : Resurgent has repeatedly issued superficial account summaries prepared internally on behalf of XXXXXXXX XXXX. These responses : Do not originate from the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  ). Lack any signed agreements, payment histories, or chain-of-title documentation confirming ownership or lawful assignment. Violate FDCPA Section 809 ( b ), as supported by Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, and Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc. which clarify that meaningful validation can not consist of internally generated records. Credit Bureau Reporting Misconduct ( Re-Aging and Inaccuracy ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are misreporting both tradelines in violation of Metro 2 and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Using acquisition dates as Open Dates ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) rather than the original credit account opening dates. Reporting monthly charge-off statuses post-acquisition without any revived payment activity thus manufacturing a false delinquency timeline. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed to correct or delete these accounts despite previous disputes and legal documentation, thereby violating their duty under FCRA 611 ( a ) and Florida Statutes XXXX and XXXX. Prior Investigations Failed to Remedy Violations : Despite several rounds of dispute letters and comprehensive evidence submitted between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, these accounts remain active with : No investigation outcome disclosures. No deletion or adjustment for disputed inaccuracies. Communications from the CRAs appear to rely on boilerplate responses from furnishers, without conducting meaningful reinvestigations contrary to Cushman v. Trans Union Corp .. Legal Oversight and Regulatory Involvement : I have formally contacted the Florida Attorney Generals office, which has acknowledged receipt of the complaint and documentation. My new FCRA attorney has been provided with : All account statements, Validation responses, XXXX investigation correspondence, Metro 2 analysis and system coding inconsistencies, Proof of credit score suppression via unlawful re-aging.

This submission also holds Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion accountable for willfully enabling deceptive reporting practices by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. Despite receiving multiple disputes between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, along with exhaustive supporting documentation, the CRAs failed to : Conduct reasonable reinvestigations as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).

Correct Metro 2 field violations, including misuse of Open Date and misrepresentation of charge-off statuses.

Remove tradelines tied to unvalidated debts, despite acknowledgement from furnishers that no signed contracts, payment histories, or lawful assignments exist. 

This pattern directly contradicts the holding in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which mandates that CRAs must go beyond creditor responses when resolving disputes and engage in meaningful review. The CRAs ' continued reliance on recycled furnishers ' replies which are not credible nor legally sufficient has enabled : Unlawful re-aging by misreporting acquisition dates as original account openings. 

Monthly charge-off statuses post-sale, artificially extending delinquency timelines. 

Score suppression and reputational harm, based on tradelines that violate both FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and Floridas consumer protection laws. 

Additionally, the CRAs failed to report the results of prior investigations or provide any substantive response to disputes filed via your FCRA attorney or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint. These omissions, along with the continued publication of inaccurate data, suggest reckless disregard for regulatory compliance and consumer rights.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation