Consumer complaint received 2025-11-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
What happened in this situation is that a XXXX XXXX XXXX, identified as Ref : XXXX, has been reported on my consumer report as a negative and derogatory public record without proper verification, without original court documentation, without a complete chain-of-custody trail, and without a meaningful procedural investigation by the credit reporting agencies responsible for publishing and distributing the information. Although bankruptcy filings are public information, the manner in which this particular record was obtained, processed, verified, and reported raises significant concerns regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the accuracy of the data, the methods of verification used, the involvement of third-party public-records vendors, and the overall procedural fairness of the credit bureaus practices. 

The issue began when this bankruptcy record appeared on my credit file several years after the events occurred. While I understand that bankruptcies may remain reportable for a legally defined period, the problem lies not with the existence of the bankruptcy itself, but in the credit bureaus failure to verify the information using original, certified court documentation. Instead, the record appears to have been added to my file through automated data-scraping systems or third-party public-records aggregators. These automated systems frequently pull partial, outdated, or incomplete information from federal court databases and are known to pass along errors because they do not retrieve certified court documents nor perform manual verification. The presence of such a serious derogatory item on my file, without proof that the bureaus obtained or reviewed certified records, is a direct violation of the FCRAs standards requiring maximum possible accuracy.

The concerns deepened when I attempted to dispute the accuracy and verification of the bankruptcy. The credit bureaus responded with extremely generic dispute results, stating that the public record was verified. However, they failed to provide the legally required Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). This omission is significant because the Method of Verification must identify the party or system used to verify the information, the procedure followed, and the source contacted. Instead of providing this legally required information, the bureaus simply repeated the same automated response indicating that the item remained on the report.

I also observed that the bureaus failed to provide evidence that they performed a meaningful, independent reinvestigation. Instead, the reinvestigation appeared to be automated, likely relying solely on the same third-party vendor that initially provided the bankruptcy information. The FCRA requires that a reinvestigation be reasonable, thorough, and independentnot a cursory automated confirmation. If the bureaus rely on the same automated tool or vendor that originally supplied the record, then no true reinvestigation occurred. 

During the dispute process, none of the bureaus produced any of the certified documents that would normally accompany a verified bankruptcy record. These documents include : a certified copy of the petition, certified discharge order, certified docket sheet, or any other official filings obtained directly from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that adjudicated the case. Without these original documents, the bureaus can not legally claim that the bankruptcy has been properly verified. Bankruptcy records are complex legal filings, and verifying them requires more than a database hit or a third-party summary. A meaningful verification requires checking the exact docket number, confirming the filing dates, reviewing the case disposition, and ensuring that the record accurately matches the consumer.

Yet none of these steps were demonstrated by the bureaus. Instead, the responses lacked specificity, clarity, and evidence. The bureaus did not show that they contacted the court. They did not show that they accessed PACER directly. They did not demonstrate that they obtained any certified filings. Instead, all signs indicate that they relied on automated public-records scanning toolstools known to misidentify individuals or pull incomplete data.

This lack of proper verification is concerning because many third-party vendors do not gather certified documents. Instead, they gather summaries or partial listings of bankruptcy cases. These summaries are not legally sufficient for verification under the FCRA. They do not include official seals, signatures, or the full docket context required to validate accuracy. As a result, the derogatory record may be based on incomplete or outdated information, and without certified documentation, the credit bureau can not legally verify or continue reporting it. Another major issue in what happened is the failure of the credit bureaus
to provide transparency regarding the source of the bankruptcy data. When asked who supplied the information, the bureaus did not name the third-party vendor. They did not provide the vendors address, identification number, or data-sourcing methodology. They also did not provide a chain-of-custody record, which would show when the information was received, who processed it, how it was validated, and whether the record was ever updated or reviewed.

Without this documentation, it is impossible to know whether the bankruptcy was reported accurately, whether it was reviewed properly, or whether it was even associated with the correct individual. Many consumers experience public-record mismatches due to similar names or clerical errors. A proper verification process would require the bureaus to demonstrate that they matched multiple identifiers accurately. Yet none of these steps were shown.

Additionally, the bureaus did not provide any evidence that they performed periodic updates on the bankruptcy record. Federal court dockets often update over time to include amendments, corrections, or additional entries. A credit bureau that reports public records must ensure that any updates are reflected accurately. However, the bureaus in this case did not show evidence that they ever retrieved updated docket information or reviewed updated filings.

Another concerning aspect of what happened is the lack of procedural fairness during the dispute process. When a consumer disputes a public record, the bureaus are required by law to mark the item as disputed during the reinvestigation. This notation informs lenders that the accuracy of the item is actively being reviewed. However, in this case, the bureaus did not clearly indicate that the record was marked as disputed. This failure is a procedural violation under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). Failure to mark a record as disputed during reinvestigation can lead lenders to assume that the information is fully accurate and unchallenged, which harms the consumer.

Furthermore, the bureaus failed to provide any description of the internal procedures they used during the reinvestigation. Under the FCRA, consumers have the right to know the procedures used to verify disputed information. The bureaus did not provide documentation detailing the steps taken, the systems consulted, or the training and oversight applied to the reinvestigation process.

When reviewing this situation, it is clear that the bureaus did not conduct a meaningful investigation. No certified documents were provided. No communication with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court was demonstrated. No identity-matching procedures were disclosed. No procedural logs or audit trails were provided. The bureau simply issued a generic verification response without supporting evidence.

This situation also raises serious concerns about the accuracy of automated bankruptcy reporting systems. The credit bureaus often contract with third-party vendors who use web-scraping tools or automated database scans to pull public-record information. These tools frequently fail to distinguish between similar names, do not retrieve full docket information, and do not validate whether the extracted data is complete or current. If the bureaus rely solely on such vendors, without manual review or certified documentation, they are violating the FCRAs requirement to ensure maximum possible accuracy.

Another issue in what happened is the failure to provide a copy of any communication between the bureaus and the vendor or court. Under the FCRA, when a consumer disputes information, the bureau must forward all relevant information to the furnisher or entity that provided the data. There is no evidence that any relevant information was forwarded. There is no evidence that the court was contacted. There is no evidence that the vendor received the consumers dispute details. Without such evidence, it appears that the bureaus did not follow FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) requirements.

Additionally, the dispute outcomes did not include any specific explanation of how the bankruptcy was verified. The FCRA requires a description of the process used. However, instead of providing details, the bureaus offered a conclusory statement that the record was verified, which is legally insufficient.

This situation also raises concerns about reinsertion rules. If the bankruptcy record was ever removed due to dispute and then reinserted, the bureaus are legally required to notify the consumer within five business days. The lack of documentation and transparency makes it unclear whether reinsertion rules were followed. Failure to comply with reinsertion rules is a direct violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).

The overall impact of what happened is that an unverified, unsupported, and potentially inaccurate bankruptcy record continues to appear as a derogatory entry on my consumer report. Because the credit bureaus did not provide original certified documents, did not disclose their verification process, did not identify the vendor, did not provide a chain-of-custody trail, and did not demonstrate independent reinvestigation, the accuracy of the record can not be trusted. Meanwhile, the presence of the bankruptcy affects creditworthiness, loan approvals, interest rates, and financial opportunities. 

In summary, what happened is the following : The XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Ref : XXXX ) was reported without original certified documentation.

The bureaus relied on automated vendor systems instead of direct verification with the court.

The reinvestigation process was automated and not independent.

No Method of Verification was provided.

No certified court filings were produced.

No chain-of-custody documentation was provided.

No identity-matching procedures were disclosed.

The record may not have been marked as disputed during review.

No procedural description of the reinvestigation was shared.

No evidence of updated docket review was provided.

No compliance with FCRA reinvestigation requirements was shown.

No transparency regarding vendors or data sources was given.

Because of these failures, the reporting of the bankruptcy can not be considered reliable, accurate, verifiable, or compliant with FCRA standards.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief