Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CL Holdings LLC
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
The issue I am reporting concerns the manner in which the XXXX XXXX account has been reported, verified, and maintained on my consumer credit reports. This account is currently being reported as a collection or charge-off, with a past-due amount and derogatory status. However, the information appears inaccurate, incomplete, and unverifiable. Throughout the dispute process, no documentation has ever been provided to confirm the validity, ownership, or accuracy of the alleged debt. The reporting of this account has caused significant harm to my credit reputation and financial opportunities, and the companies involved have failed to comply with their legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and, if applicable, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

When I reviewed my credit reports, I noticed that XXXX XXXX was reporting a collection tradeline. The account appears as derogatory, showing a past-due amount and an ongoing negative status. However, the tradeline does not include important required information such as the original creditors name, the date of first delinquency, the date the account was opened, or the chain of assignment. Without these details, it is impossible to determine whether the debt is legitimate or whether the furnisher has any legal right to report it. 

Because the account appeared suspicious and lacked essential identifying information, I initiated disputes with the nationwide credit reporting agencies. Under the FCRA, consumers have the right to dispute any information they believe is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. I exercised this right by formally disputing the XXXX XXXX XXXX through each major credit bureau. In my disputes, I explained that the account lacked critical information, that I did not recognize the debt, and that I needed validation and proof of ownership. 

After submitting my disputes, I expected the credit reporting agencies to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), the bureaus must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is accurate. They must contact the furnisher, request validation, and review supporting documents. If they can not verify the disputed information, they are required to delete or correct it. 

However, the responses I received from the credit bureaus were generic and unsatisfactory. They simply stated that the account had been verified as accurate, without providing any documentation, explanation, or method of verification. I received no information about how the verification occurred, whether the furnisher provided any documents, or whether any original records were reviewed. The credit bureaus did not provide the name of the person who verified the account, the records reviewed, or the details of the reinvestigation. 

This indicates that the bureaus likely relied on automated dispute-processing systems such as XXXX where disputes are coded into numerical categories and sent electronically to furnishers. Furnishers often respond with a simple verified code without reviewing documents, and the bureaus accept this response as sufficient. However, courts have repeatedly ruled that automated, code-based verification does not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation under the FCRA. 

The XXXX XXXX tradeline contains multiple red flags that should have triggered deeper scrutiny : No original creditor is listed. 
A legitimate collection account must clearly identify the original creditor. This tradeline does not. 

No chain of assignment is provided. 
Debt buyers must maintain proof of assignment. This tradeline does not show any transfer history. 

No supporting documentation exists. 
At no point has any bureau or furnisher provided a contract, billing statement, account history, or validation notice. 

No FDCPA notice was ever received. 
If the account is being collected, the consumer must receive a written debt validation notice. None was provided. 

Dates and information are incomplete. 
The tradeline lacks key data such as the date opened, date of first delinquency, or original amount. 

XXXX reporting is inconsistent. 
Across bureaus, the reported details are different, demonstrating inaccuracy. 

These omissions make the tradeline inherently unreliable. 

Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit reporting agencies must maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Reporting unverifiable and incomplete data violates this requirement. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ), furnishers must not supply information they know or should know is inaccurate. When a consumer disputes a debt, FCRA 623 ( b ) requires the furnisher to conduct its own investigation, review all available documentation, and report the results back to the bureaus. There is no evidence that XXXX XXXX performed any true investigation. 

Additionally, if XXXX XXXX is acting as a debt collector, FDCPA 809 ( b ) requires them to provide validation upon request and prohibits continued reporting until such validation is provided. Because no validation has ever been produced, they XXXX be violating FDCPA as well. 

Another concerning issue is that the XXXX XXXX tradeline is missing the legally required dispute notation. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), furnishers must inform credit bureaus when an account is disputed by the consumer. This prevents lenders from assuming the data is accurate while it is under investigation. The failure to add this notation is harmful, misleading, and non-compliant with federal law. 

Throughout this entire process, despite filing appropriate disputes, I received no meaningful response. The bureaus appear to have simply accepted the furnishers automated verified response. They did not request documentation. They did not ensure accuracy. They did not delete the account when it could not be verified. They did not provide the method of verification upon request. They did not include dispute notations. They did not correct inconsistencies. None of their actions fulfilled the requirements of a proper reinvestigation. 

The XXXX XXXX tradeline continues to cause harm by lowering my XXXX score, increasing my cost of borrowing, and contributing to negative perceptions by lenders and other third parties. The presence of this account has resulted in difficulty obtaining credit under fair terms and has caused unnecessary stress and hardship. Inaccurate or unverifiable collection reporting is known to have a severe negative impact on credit profiles, and the absence of documentation makes the reporting even more harmful. 

The bureaus had a legal duty to delete the tradeline when it could not be verified. Instead, they left it on my report without proof. This violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), which mandates deletion of unverifiable information. 

A fair and correct reinvestigation would have required XXXX XXXX to produce : The original signed agreement or contract A complete itemized account history Evidence of the original creditor Proof of ownership or assignment, such as a bill of sale Copies of billing statements Records of communications or notices sent A breakdown of the balance and past-due amount Documentation proving the account belongs to me Since none of these were provided, the account can not be considered accurate. 

The dispute process itself demonstrated systemic deficiencies. Rather than performing a meaningful reinvestigation, the bureaus appeared to rely entirely on automated electronic communication. They did not request documentation. They did not perform manual review. They did not apply proper oversight. They simply accepted the furnishers unsubstantiated verification. 

This is not what the FCRA intends. The FCRA mandates thorough reinvestigations, not automated shortcuts. It mandates accuracy, not XXXX acceptance. It mandates validation, not assumptions. It mandates disclosures, not silence. The purpose of the FCRA is to protect consumers, yet in this situation, the protections were not upheld. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX remains on my report despite : No contract No validation No statements No itemized account breakdown No ownership proof No original creditor identified No dispute notation No method of verification provided No explanation of the balance No legally required notices This means the account is unverifiable and should not be reported. 

Continuing to report an unverifiable collection account is harmful, inaccurate, and unfair. It also undermines the entire credit reporting systems integrity. Consumer reports must be accurate. Furnishers must have records. Bureaus must perform real investigations. When any of these fail, the affected tradeline must be deleted. 

In summary, what happened is as follows : XXXX XXXX is reporting a derogatory collection tradeline. 

The account lacks the original creditor, chain of assignment, and identifying information. 

I disputed the account with all major credit bureaus. 

The bureaus responded with generic verified statements. 

No documents were provided by the bureaus or the furnisher. 

No contract, statements, or proof of ownership were provided. 

The account was never validated as required by law. 

The bureaus relied on automated systems, not meaningful review. 

The furnisher XXXX not have records proving the debt. 

No dispute notation was added. 

The bureaus failed to provide a method of verification. 

The reported information is inconsistent and incomplete. 

The account continues to harm my credit. 

The tradeline is unverifiable and should have been removed. 

The furnisher and bureaus did not comply with FCRA or FDCPA requirements. 

The end result is that an unverified, inaccurate, and incomplete account remains on my report without documentation, validation, or legal justification.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation