Consumer complaint received 2024-05-20 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:
XXXX is closing out complaints alleging they are " duplicates '' of previous complaints. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX closed out CFPB Complaint XXXX ( filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ), claiming it was a " duplicate '' of CFPB complaint XXXX. CFPB Complaint XXXX neither makes mention of the new evidence I discovered regarding mishandling of temporary statement credits as alleged in XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor included the documentation ( billing statements ) Consumer attached to XXXX. Ironically XXXX was filed because CFPB complaints XXXX and XXXX were marked as duplicates of CFPB complaint XXXX. It is clear XXXX would rather contravene their responsibilities under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 and forego investigations when they receive either direct disputes and/or disputes from the CRAs, rather than provide non-monetary relief for a XXXX individual whom they've continusouly harmed, and caused to experience job loss, and housing instability, as a result of their unfair, deceptive, and quite frankly abusive acts and practices. They have consistently supplied and verified facially false information to the CRAs, an dthen claimed it isn't their issue if the CRAs do not process the information furnished correcly. However, if XXXX thinks it is neither negligent nor willful in this matter then they are mistaken because as the XXXX Circuit put it " A CRA can best fulfill its obligation to report accurately under 1681e if it receives accurate information from a furnisher under 1681s-2 '' ( Saunders v. Branch Banking, 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ) ). Moreover, a violation of a furnisher 's responsibilities under twillful when it is 1681s-2 inconsistent with authoritative guidance of the CFPB ( see Safeco Ins . Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70 ( 2007 ) ; Fuges v. Sw. Fin. Servs., Ltd. , 707 F.3d 241, 253 ( 3d Cir. 2012 ) ). Courts have recognized that in certain instances, inaccurate credit reports by themselves can fairly be read as evidencing unreasonable procedures [. ] ( Stewart v. Credit Bureau , Inc., 734 F.2d 47, 52 ). Facially inaccurate data is perhaps the most egregious and exactly the kind XXXX continues to verify as accurate, when even a reasonable reader can view the corresponding account/tradeline and discern XXXX is full of XXXX XXXX. I have put up with XXXX 's nonsense for over one an done half years, and if XXXX thinks at this point they will simply wait-out the utility period, I can assure them they are gravely mistaken. ** [ BEGIN CFPB COMPLAINT XXXX ] ** The fact is from XX/XX/XXXX through present XXXX has engaged in unfair or decepive, and absuive acts and practices. In XXXX of XXXX account ending XXXX was alleged by XXXX to have been charged-off. The data furnished by XXXX to the CRAs has been horridly inconsistent and rife with facially false derogatory information to include an inaccurate Date of First Delinquency and inaccurate or misleading payment history for all months XX/XX/XXXX throug present. In response their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to CFPB Complaint XXXX XXXX asked Consumer to understand that XXXXXXXX XXXX is responsible for providing [ the information for account ending XXXX ] to the credit reporting agencies ; [ but ] the XXXX On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer reviewed the statements from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX for account XXXX. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer reviewed the statements for account XXXX generated between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Consumer found that a temporary credit was applied to Consumer 's accont in the amount of XXXX XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX in response to a billing error notice filed by Consumer ( see statement XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ). The temporary credit was reversed on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( see statement XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ). From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX no staements show a subsequent application of a temporary payment. However, the final statment generated BEFORE alleged C/O shows the revesral of a temporary statement credit of XXXX XXXX. ( see statement XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ). The same statement shows no application of a temporary credit. Thus a second temporary credit was reversed that did not exist causing XXXX 's systems to wrongfully charge the balance to loss at the end of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX 's XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX provided a table corroborating the activity as described between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. My account was was wrongfully charged off due to XXXX 's unfair or decepive, and abusive acts or practices. Since the end of XXXX XXXX has closed out multiple CFPB complaints by marking said complaints as " duplicates, '' and justifying their actons by claiming the would not conduct any additional investigations without new or updated information from Consumer because thier alleged prior investigation found no errors. The specific complaints marked as duplicates are : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Therefore, despite a facially inaccurate DoFD and payment history, it is likely XXXX is foregoing any investigations in response to the CRA 's transmission of Consumer 's dispute notices and documentation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation