Consumer complaint received 2025-11-13 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing the accuracy, completeness, and permissible purpose of several items appearing on my consumer reports. These include ( XXXX ) derogatory tradelines that lack original documentation or contain inconsistent data fields ; ( XXXX ) paid/closed accounts that still carry XXXX late codes ; ( XXXX ) student-loan transfer histories that appear to double-count delinquencies or carry across negative codes after consolidation or status changes; and ( XXXX ) clusters of hard inquiries where I did not authorize, recognize, or receive the product connected to the inquiry, or where duplicative mortgage/auto pulls appear to be over-counted. I requested a reinvestigation and a full Method of Verification ( MOV ) under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asked for the XXXX XXXX of how the items were verified. I also asked the bureaus and furnishers to identify the specific systems used ( e-OSCAR, ACDV/AUD, third-party data ), the dates/timestamps, the user IDs of verifiers, and the documents reviewed. To date, I have not received adequate documentary proof, and incorrect/unsupported negative data remains. 

Items with derogatory status or late codes that I dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) charged off/collection with past-due {$2900.00} The account is reported as derogatory with multiple XXXX late codes and a collection/charge-off characterization. I dispute the status, past-due amount, date of first delinquency ( DOFD ), and whether proper notice/charge-off accounting exists. I requested ( a ) the original cardholder agreement bearing my signature/consent, ( b ) complete monthly statements covering the reported delinquency period, ( c ) charge-off ledger entries, and ( d ) all XXXX records exchanged via e-OSCAR, including the date, time, and fields verified. I have not been provided with this documentation. 

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported as collection/charge-off with extensive late history * * The file shows a closed account with a large past-due amount and a long string of XXXX late codes. I dispute the reported past-due amount, the charge-off status, the XXXX, and any assignment/ownership transitions. I asked for a chain-of-title ( original creditor to current owner ), forward-flow or purchase agreement pages referencing my alleged account, and billing statements that show how the past-due balance was calculated. No original documents were produced. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX closed XX/XX/XXXX, status paid, but derogatory late codes remain * * Although the trade reflects paid/closed, multiple XXXX late codes continue to appear. I asked the bureaus and the furnisher to reconcile how a paid/closed status can continue to carry derogatory codes when no statements were provided to show the precise dates amounts were actually past due. I also requested a review for possible re-aging or misaligned posting dates. No adequate explanation has been provided. 

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Equifax-only ) XXXX as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * I requested the original statement ( s ) for the alleged late month, payment history screenshots, and any internal notes that justified the derogatory code. I have not received documentation demonstrating accuracy. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) closed as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * Same issue as above : the account is paid/closed yet retains negative coding. I asked for the statement for the alleged late period, payment posting logs, and the specific fields that were verified during prior reinvestigations. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lates * * Utilization and payment data are present, but the late codes appear inconsistent with other fields. I asked for detailed billing statements covering the late periods and for confirmation of whether the late codes were verified by manual review or solely by furnisher response via e-OSCAR. 

XXXX  XXXX ( multiple entries, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  At least XXXX XXXX XXXX account reflects XXXX late codes while other XXXX XXXX trades show XXXX % utilization. I asked for a complete, date-by-date payment history, the method of verification for each late code, and evidence that names, addresses, and account numbers were matched using more than partial SSN or last-name logging. I have not been provided with documents showing original statements or objective proof. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( line of credit ) single XXXX late * * I requested the statement for the late month, payment logs, timestamps of the due date and the date paid, and any internal corrections. No documentation was produced with timestamps. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  current but shows XXXX XXXX lates * * I dispute the number and timing of the reported lates. I requested the full payment history with posting dates, and a reconciliation between bank/payment confirmations and the dates the furnisher reported to the bureaus. I asked for XXXX XXXX numbers, the verification method, and copies of any correspondence that would show why so many XXXX lates were coded. I have not received adequate evidence. 

Student-loan cluster XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department of Education lines Several XXXX accounts are either open/current or closed/paid/transferred. A subset reflects XXXX and XXXX lates. Many older loans show Paid or Transferred on/around XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, with new XXXX lines opened/continued later. My concerns : Duplicate or propagated late codes : After consolidation/transfer, some delinquency windows appear to follow the loans into new account numbers, effectively double-counting negative history. 

Misaligned timelines : Closure dates ( paid/transferred ) sometimes precede or coincide with months allegedly coded late on successor lines. 

Lack of original documentation : I asked for monthly statements for the reported late periods, a ledger showing application of payments, and consolidation/transfer letters that establish which account carried which delinquency and for how long. 

I specifically referenced XXXX account numbers that show XXXX lates and requested formal, document-based verificationrather than unverifiable verified as accurate form letters. I have not been given those records. 

Mixed/inconsistent data fields ( accuracy and completeness ) Across multiple revolving trades, I see inconsistent utilization, balances, and date last posted entries compared with the presence of late codes or derogatory labels. For example, a trade can display a current balance of {$0.00} or show paid/closed, yet still carry persistent derogatory markers. I asked for the exact system data fields that were verified ( e.g., XXXX codes, payment rating, compliance condition code, XXXX, FCRA status, payment history profile ) and the dates/timestamps when the furnisher updated these fields. 

I also requested a full review to ensure there is no furnisher drift, where an old negative code remains attached to a trade after the trade transitions to paid/closed or after it is transferred to a new servicer. No field-level XXXX XXXX has been provided. 

Hard inquiry clusters and permissible purpose concerns ( FCRA 604 ) There are heavy burst periods of hard inquiries. A significant cluster appears dated XX/XX/XXXX ( including XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, preceding clusters around XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple banks/retailers ), XX/XX/XXXX ( mortgage-related pulls through XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others back into XXXX and XXXX. 

My concerns and actions : I did not complete credit transactions with several of these entities, did not receive loans, and did not knowingly authorize so many duplicative pulls. 

Some appear to be aggregators ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) that may have pulled multiple times for the same shopping window. 

I asked each bureau to supply permissible purpose codes, the originating system, whether the inquiry should be coded soft vs. hard, and any consumer consent documents ( applications/e-sign logs, IP addresses, or dealership LOAs ). 

I requested the bureaus confirm de-duplication logic for auto/mortgage shopping windows so the inquiries are not over-counted or left outside the accepted window. 

I have not received documentary proof ( signed applications, LOAs, or IP/e-sign logs ). Where consent or permissible purpose can not be proven, I requested deletion/suppression. 

Timeline of what I did ( consumer actions ) Reviewed my consumer reports line-by-line and identified inconsistencies and derogatory items that lacked clear documentary basis.

Submitted formal disputes to the credit bureaus requesting reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asking for the Method of Verification under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ).

Listed each tradeline and inquiry and requested the audit trail ( XXXX numbers, timestamps, the exact fields verified, and whether the verification was electronic via e-OSCAR or manual ). 

Requested original documentation : signed contracts, monthly statements for alleged late months, payment histories with posting dates, charge-off ledgers, and chain-of-title documents for any debt bought/sold. 

Highlighted paid/closed accounts that still carried derogatory codes and asked for removal if the furnisher could not show the specific month ( XXXX ) that were actually XX/XX/XXXX days past due. 

Flagged student-loan lines to ensure transfers/consolidations didnt duplicate or propagate delinquencies. 

Disputed hard inquiries without recognized authorization and asked for proof of permissible purpose and consumer consent. 

Despite these steps, the responses so far have not provided documentary proof, and certain items remain unchanged or only partially corrected. 

Verification and documentation I asked for ( and still need ) For each disputed tradeline : The specific method of verification used ( e.g., e-OSCAR ACDV number, manual review, third-party data feed ). 
All XXXX records, including date/time, operator ID, and fields verified or modified. 
Original documentation : signed credit agreements, monthly statements covering alleged late months, proof of any charge-off with accounting entries, and proof of assignment/ownership changes. 
Chain of custody for data : systems through which the information traveled, and confirmation that more than basic name + XXXX matching was used. 

For hard inquiries : The inquirys permissible purpose, the originating requester, and copies of any application/consent ( wet-ink or e-signature logs, IP, dealership buyers orders/LOAs ). 
Confirmation of hard vs. soft coding and the rationale ; application of de-duplication for mortgage/auto shopping windows. 

For student loans : Complete payment histories, transfer/consolidation letters, and confirmation that any delinquency window is not duplicated across old/new loan IDs. 
Removal of negative codes that remain on paid/transferred lines where there is no underlying original statement proof. 

Why this matters under FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum possible accuracy : When the bureaus continue to report lates or charge-offs without original billing statements, charge-off ledgers, or verified DOFDs, the reports do not reflect maximum possible accuracy.

611 ( a ) Reinvestigation duties & Method of Verification : A reinvestigation must be meaningful. A furnishers bare response of verified without documents is not enough, especially when specific dates, amounts, and statuses are challenged.

611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Reinsertions : If any items were removed or suppressed but later reinserted, the bureaus must have a certification from the furnisher and must notify me. I am asking for assurance that, if items are deleted now due to lack of documentation, they will not be reinserted without full compliance.

604 Permissible purpose : Every hard inquiry must have a legitimate purpose and consumer authorization. If the requester can not produce the application or consent, the inquiry should be removed. 

Concrete examples illustrating the problems Paid/Closed but negative codes remain : XXXX XXXX  ( closed and paid ) still shows multiple late codes ; XXXXXXXX  ( Equifax-only ) and XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) are similar. These notations depress scores even though the accounts no longer carry balances and the furnishers have not produced the original statements for the alleged late months. 

Charged-off/Collection without ledger support : XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) and XXXX XXXX show heavy derogatories and past-due amounts, yet I have not received charge-off accounting or statements proving the amounts and dates. 

Student-loan transfer complexity : Numerous XXXX lines were paid or transferred in XXXX, then continued under different numbers in XXXX. Negative codes look like they migrated or were double-counted. I need a clean mapping showing which months were actually delinquent and proof that the same late window isnt reported twice. 

Inquiry bursts : On XX/XX/XXXX, there were multiple auto-related pulls XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I did not obtain multiple loans that day. I asked for documentary proof of each requesters authority and to ensure proper deduplication for auto shopping. Similar clusters exist on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), among others. 

Harm suffered Continued publication of derogatory data and excessive inquiries has depressed credit scores, increased the cost of credit, and restricted access to favorable terms. 

The presence of unsupported charge-off/collection statuses and lingering late codes on paid/closed accounts creates a misleading picture of creditworthiness. 

Duplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-seeking behavior I did not actually engage in. 

What Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item. 

Produce documentary evidencenot just a furnishers verified checkboxsuch as signed contracts, statements, payment ledgers, charge-off documentation, transfer/assignment records, and XXXX logs with timestamps and operator IDs. 

Delete or suppress any tradeline or derogatory code that can not be substantiated with original documentation or that is inconsistent with paid/closed status. 

Correct student-loan reporting to prevent the same delinquency window from being counted on both the predecessor and successor loan IDs after consolidation/transfer. Remove any late codes that can not be supported with statements for the exact months alleged. 

Remove unauthorized or unvalidated hard inquiries where permissible purpose and consumer consent can not be proven with documentary records. Apply proper deduplication rules to auto/mortgage clusters. 

Confirm in writing the steps taken, the documents reviewed, the systems used to verify, and the names/titles ( or IDs ) of the compliance personnel who completed the reinvestigation. 

Ensure no reinsertion of any deleted item without full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including timely notice and furnisher certification.

Send corrected reports to recent users of my credit file and provide me with confirmation copies.

Why a detailed audit trail matters here In past dispute attempts, responses have sometimes stated verified as accurate without identifying the method used, the underlying documents, or the specific fields that were reviewed. When the dispute is granularspecific late months, DOFD, charge-off amounts, transfer timingthe law requires more than a conclusory response. The systems involved ( XXXX, XXXX, or third-party data feeds ) create logs and message IDs that can be produced. These records, along with the furnishers source documents, would either validate the negative data or require its deletion. I am asking for those records now. 

Closing I have made a good-faith effort to identify precisely what appears inaccurate or incomplete : charge-off/collection characterizations without ledger support, lingering derogatory codes on paid/closed accounts, potential duplication/propagation of student-loan delinquencies after transfers, and multiple clusters of hard inquiries where I do not recognize authorizations or where deduplication appears not to have been applied. I respectfully request a meaningful reinvestigation, documentary Method of Verification, and prompt correction or deletion of all unverifiable information. Please provide a written summary of your findings, the documents relied upon, and the corrective actions taken.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief