Consumer complaint received 2026-05-13 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Upstart Holdings, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this complaint against Upstart XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading credit reporting on my loan account XXXX. Upstart reported my account as 30 days late for the XX/XX/year> payment period. However, I had automatic payments set up and acted in good faith to make my payments. The issue was not caused by intentional nonpayment or refusal to pay. It appears to have involved payment processing, ACH/banking restrictions, and unclear or conflicting payment information. The main concern is that Upstarts own system sent me payment confirmations that reasonably led me to believe my payments were processed. On XX/XX/year>, Upstart emailed me stating that my automatic payment of {$60.00} had been processed from my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX checking account ending in XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, Upstart sent another confirmation stating that a payment of {$63.00} had been applied to my loan and that my card ending in XXXX had been debited. Despite these confirmations, Upstart later claimed that the XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX payments were returned as unsuccessful and reported the account as XXXX as of XX/XX/year>. This creates a direct conflict between Upstarts payment confirmation emails and the negative credit reporting. I disputed the reporting directly with Upstart and explained that the issue was caused by a payment/banking problem, not neglect or inability to pay. I also explained that the account had been brought current and requested removal of the 30-day late reporting. Upstart refused to remove the late reporting, stating that no internal error was found. I then requested a final escalation and asked Upstart to reconcile its internal records, including the system-generated payment confirmations, returned payment codes, and credit reporting. I specifically requested a manual review because Upstarts own payment confirmations conflicted with its decision to report the account late. Instead of providing a full reconciliation, Upstart stated that the matter was resolved and that no further communication would be provided. I believe this raises concerns under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, including California Civil Code 1785.25. Under California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ), a furnisher should not report information to a consumer credit reporting agency if it knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate. In this case, Upstart had payment confirmations generated by its own system, yet still reported the account as 30 days late without fully reconciling the conflicting information. Under California Civil Code 1785.25 ( b ), if a furnisher determines that information previously reported is incomplete or inaccurate, it must promptly correct or update that information with the credit reporting agencies. I provided Upstart with notice of the conflicting payment confirmations, but Upstart refused to correct or meaningfully review the reporting. Under California Civil Code 1785.25 ( c ), when the accuracy or completeness of reported information remains disputed by the consumer, the furnisher should not continue reporting the information without noting that it is disputed. I have repeatedly disputed this reporting and request confirmation that any continued reporting includes a consumer dispute notation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation