Consumer complaint received 2025-11-05 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Marlette Funding, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Willful FCRA and FDCPA Violations Fraudulent Re-Insertion of Invalid Debt ; Continued Reporting After Legal Invalidation SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT This complaint concerns XXXX XXXX XXXX, through its servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX, which has knowingly and willfully re-reported and verified an invalid debt that was legally disputed, determined invalid, and subject to multiple attorney validation demands under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

Despite receiving repeated written disputes, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX s formal validation findings, and a pending CFPB complaint, XXXX  re-inserted and verified a debt that lacked a valid contract, lacked signature, and had no lawful basis for collection or reporting a clear violation of federal and Florida consumer-protection laws. 

XXXX XXXX Invalidation by Counsel : On XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issued validation demands on my behalf regarding a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank account later claimed by XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX validation response confirmed INVALID Not Verified as of XX/XX/XXXX, due to the absence of : Any valid signed loan agreement; APR or Truth-in-Lending disclosures ; Complete statement or transaction history ; Chain-of-title documentation evidencing lawful assignment XXXX XXXX XXXX INVALID - Not Valid and not reporting currently. 
. 

Ongoing Noncompliance and False Verification : Despite these findings, XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting for XXXX XXXX, submitted a CFPB response on XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB Case # XXXX ) asserting ownership and continuing to report two charged-off accounts as accurate. 
This submission ignored prior legal invalidation and demonstrates reckless disregard for known defects, constituting willful misrepresentation under the FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Unauthorized Re-Insertion : The tradeline, previously deleted, was re-inserted into credit files without the required certification and without written notice to me a direct violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).

This act constitutes false furnishing of information known to be inaccurate under 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and creates additional liability for the participating credit bureaus that accepted the re-reporting. 

Failure of CRAs to Protect Consumer Rights : All three CRAs XXXX XXXX and XXXX  received my dispute through CFPB submissions on XX/XX/XXXX ( Complaint IDs XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) yet continued to publish the false data, despite having full evidence of invalidation and prior deletion. 

This constitutes joint liability under FCRA 1681i for reinserting data without verification and for negligent reinvestigation. 

STATUTORY VIOLATIONS Law Provision Nature of Violation FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duty to conduct reasonable investigation XXXX verified an invalid debt without documentation. 
FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Re-insertion without certification or notice Account re-added after deletion, no notice received.

FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information known to be inaccurate XXXX  reported known invalid account as valid.

FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) False communication of credit information Reported debt as valid after attorney dispute.

FDCPA 809 ( b ) Collection before providing validation Attempted to collect and report while in dispute. Furthermore these accounts to date are unverified per law by the furnisher and should not have been sold to XXXX  as furnisher was aware accounts remained unverified therefore debt is unenforceable under Consumer Protection Laws both in Florida and Federally.

FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) Attempt to enforce a debt known not to be legitimate Continuing to collect/report in Florida post-dispute . 

XXXX XXXX XXXX and its servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX have repeatedly and willfully re-inserted an invalid debt across all three major credit bureaus since XX/XX/XXXX, despite prior deletion and attorney-confirmed invalidation. As a senior consumer, I have been forced to re-dispute the same inaccurate tradeline multiple times through the CFPB portal and directly with each CRA. Their conduct constitutes willful noncompliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), and 1681n, and with Florida Stat . 559.72 ( 9 ). Based on repeated, reckless disregard of the law, combined federal and state statutory and punitive exposure now exceeds {$45000.00}, exclusive of continuing damages and attorneys fees. 

XXXX XXXX and XXXX  have jointly and repeatedly violated 15 U.S.C. 1681i, 1681e ( b ), 1681n, and Florida Statute 559.72 ( 9 ) by failing to correct or delete an invalid XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  account despite multiple verified disputes, CFPB filings, and prior deletions. As of XX/XX/XXXX, the three bureaus remain in continuous violation for nearly nine months. The combined statutory, actual, and punitive exposure now exceeds {$100000.00}, excluding continuing damages and attorneys fees. Their coordinated inaction demonstrates systemic disregard for consumer rights and elder-protection obligations under federal and state law. 

Both Bureaus and the Furnisher are violating Federal Statutes and Florida Consumer Protection Laws. I have attached all the evidence including a Utility Bill and my Florida Driver 's License. They have no excuse. This needs to be deleted and permanently blocked from all XXXX bureaus or face lawsuits for multiple consumer violations which have been disputed several times and there is no excuse on behalf of the bureaus that to date have failed to act even though provided evidence. All parties are now in willful non-compliance and intentionally causing injury on unverified and unvalidated debt that is uncollectable due to failed verification as per the FCRA. 

Should this matter not be resolved through deletion and written confirmation of closure, I will pursue full statutory, punitive, and actual damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, 1692k and Fla. Stat. 559.77, with full recovery of attorneys fees and costs.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation