Consumer complaint received 2025-11-18 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 submitting this complaint because I have encountered significant issues with the accuracy, validation, and reporting practices of several credit reporting agencies and multiple data furnishers over an extended period of time. My credit reports currently reflect several derogatory accounts, multiple late-payment histories, and a public bankruptcy record that appear to be inaccurately reported, improperly validated, or otherwise not maintained in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) when applicable, and general consumer protection standards. Despite my repeated attempts to dispute, validate, and correct the information, the credit bureaus and furnishers have continued reporting these entries without providing adequate verification or documentation. As a result, I have suffered significant financial harm, denial of credit opportunities, and emotional distress. 

This complaint documents everything that has happened, including disputes submitted to the credit bureaus, the responses ( or lack thereof ) from data furnishers, the failures to validate information, the inconsistencies across my reports, and the difficulty I have had in getting the bureaus and companies involved to conduct a proper reinvestigation. I am requesting CFPB intervention because I have exhausted all available steps as a consumer, and at this point, I believe my rights under federal law have been overlooked or ignored. 

XXXX. Background and XXXX XXXX XXXX the past several years, my credit report has contained multiple derogatory entries covering a mixture of revolving accounts, installment accounts, auto loans, and a public bankruptcy record. Some accounts were paid, some were closed voluntarily, and others XXXX have been transferred or sold. However, many of these entries continue to appear in a derogatory status without proper verification or evidence supporting the reporting. 

I began submitting formal disputes after noticing : Dates that did not match across the XXXX major credit bureaus. 

Accounts that reported as derogatory even though they were paid in full. 

Late payment histories that seemed excessive or inconsistent with my records. 

Accounts that continued to show negative information long after being closed. 

A public record entry that did not appear to be properly documented. 

Derogatory items remaining on XXXX bureau but not the others. 

Items showing verified even though no documentation was ever provided. 

I filed multiple disputes with each of the major credit bureaus and contacted furnishers directly. In each dispute, I clearly identified the accounts I believed were reported inaccurately or lacked sufficient supporting documentation. I also requested the required method of verification, as permitted by FCRA XXXX, asking the bureaus to explain exactly how each furnisher confirmed the information and what original documents were reviewed. 

Despite these requests, the bureaus largely responded with generic reinvestigation statements such as verified as accurate or meets FCRA requirements, without providing any actual documentation or explanation. This has happened repeatedly. 

XXXX. Problems With the Reinvestigation Process XXXX of the major challenges I encountered was the reinvestigation process itself. Under the law, credit bureaus are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information. A reasonable reinvestigation should include reviewing documentation, contacting the furnisher, and ensuring that all information being reported meets the standard of accuracy required by federal law. 

However, based on the responses I received, it appears that : The bureaus did not obtain any copies of the original contracts or signed agreements associated with the disputed accounts. 

They relied almost entirely on automated responses from furnishers through e-Oscar. 

They accepted whatever the furnisher stated without evaluating whether the information was verified using original records. 

They did not compare inconsistent information across bureaus to identify possible reporting errors. 

They did not provide a method of verification when I formally requested it. 

They closed investigations in extremely short time frames, suggesting minimal review. 

They kept reporting the same derogatory information even after multiple disputes. 

In some cases, the same account would be marked differently on each bureau. For example, XXXX report might list an account as XXXX, another as Closed Derogatory, and a third as Derogatory with multiple late payments. When I pointed out these inconsistencies, the bureaus simply repeated that the information was verified, without addressing the inconsistencies or providing supporting documentation. 

This pattern of responses has made it clear that the reinvestigation process is not being conducted in a meaningful way and that the bureaus and furnishers are not complying with the FCRA requirement to ensure maximum possible accuracy. 

XXXX. Failure to Provide Documentation or Validation Throughout the dispute process, I made multiple requests for : Signed contracts or credit applications. 

Payment history records. 

Account assignment records. 

Evidence supporting late-payment reporting. 

Evidence supporting the status of derogatory. 

Chain-of-title documentation for any accounts sold or transferred. 

Documentation verifying the accuracy of opening and closing dates. 

Proof of the furnishers legal authority to report the account. 

Not XXXX furnisher or bureau provided any of these items. 

Instead, I repeatedly received statements such as : The information was verified with the furnisher. 

The furnisher has confirmed the reporting. 

Meets FCRA requirements. 

At no point did any bureau provide : Original contracts Payment receipts Billing statements Account ownership documentation Copies of any communication from furnishers The specific internal notes from the reinvestigation Because no documentation was provided, I have no way to verify whether the information is accurate, complete, or legally reportable. Under the FCRA, unverifiable information must be removed. Yet the bureaus kept the entries on my reports without supplying any documentation. 

XXXX. Inaccurate and Inconsistent XXXX XXXX the XXXX Bureaus Another major issue involves discrepancies between the XXXX credit bureaus. Many accounts appear to be reported inaccurately, inconsistently, or incompletely across the XXXX major agencies. For example : Some accounts show late payments on XXXX bureau but not on another. 

Some accounts are marked as Paid on XXXX bureau but Derogatory on another. 

Some accounts appear only on XXXX bureau but not the others. 

The same account XXXX show different opening or closing dates. 

The number of late payments varies across bureaus. 

Derogatory statuses sometimes remain far beyond the date that similar data fell off another bureau. 

These inconsistencies strongly suggest that proper reinvestigation has not occurred and that the bureaus are not synchronizing or verifying their data to maintain maximum accuracy. The FCRA requires consistent and accurate reportingnot XXXX different versions of the same account. 

Furthermore, some accounts that were paid or closed continue to appear as derogatory, even though there is no outstanding balance. Late payments that supposedly occurred years ago appear to be over-reported or duplicated. Some accounts show derogatory even though they were paid in full and should not be permanently marked as such. 

XXXX. The XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX of the most serious issues relates to the bankruptcy public record. This entry appears to have been added without proper validation, and the bureaus have not provided clear documentation or proof of : The source of the public record The court from which the data was obtained The reporting authority The accuracy of the dates Whether the record was manually or automatically retrieved XXXX records should only be reported when sourced from official government databases with high accuracy. Yet when I disputed this entry, the bureaus simply responded with automated verification language and did not provide evidence of : The court record The file date The case number The documentation used The source of the data This raises concerns about whether the bankruptcy information was obtained through third-party vendors rather than directly from official public sources, which XXXX not meet FCRA accuracy XXXX. 

XXXX. Harm Experienced as a Result of These Issues The inaccurate reporting, lack of verification, and failure of the bureaus to conduct proper reinvestigation have caused substantial harm. This harm includes, but is not limited to : Financial Harm Denial of credit applications Higher interest rates due to derogatory marks Inability to obtain favorable auto loan terms Reduced access to rental housing opportunities Significant increase in the cost of insurance in some cases These impacts are directly tied to the derogatory entries that remain on my reports without proper validation. 

Emotional and Personal Stress Ongoing anxiety about credit denials Stress caused by unresolved disputes Frustration from multiple failed attempts to get accurate reporting Constant worry about the long-term credit impact Time and XXXX Burden Countless hours spent disputing inaccurate information Repeated communication with credit bureaus and furnishers The burden of preparing documentation over and over The difficulty of navigating automated dispute systems that offer little transparency I have made every effort to resolve these issues directly with the bureaus and furnishers, but their unwillingness or inability to provide documentation has made that impossible. 

XXXX. Why I Am Requesting CFPB Intervention After numerous disputes, reinvestigation requests, documentation requests, and attempts to correct errors, I have reached the conclusion that the credit bureaus and furnishers are not complying with their obligations under the FCRA. 

These issues include : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy Failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigations Failure to provide the required method of verification Failure to provide documentation supporting continued reporting Failure to correct or delete unverifiable information Failure to properly mark accounts as disputed Failure to respond meaningfully to consumer disputes Since the bureaus and furnishers have not addressed the issues despite multiple attempts, I believe CFPB involvement is necessary. 

I am requesting the CFPB to : Review the actions of the credit bureaus Require proper documentation of each disputed entry Ensure that only accurate, verified, and legally reportable information remains Require deletion of any unverifiable or inaccurate accounts Enforce compliance with the FCRA and applicable consumer protection laws My goal is not to remove legitimate information, but rather to ensure that what remains on my credit reports is : Accurate Verified Fair Legally compliant Supported by proper documentation At this point, intervention is needed to ensure that the credit bureaus and furnishers meet their legal obligations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief