Consumer complaint received 2025-07-18 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: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
I submitted my first dispute to XXXX  on XX/XX/year> regarding multiple collection accounts that I believed were inaccurate, unverifiable, or misrepresented. Despite multiple attempts to correct the errors, XXXX  has failed to provide verified, accurate, or non-duplicative information as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).

Dispute Timeline : Round 1 dispute submitted : XX/XX/year> Round 2 response ( XXXX  Report # XXXX ) : XX/XX/year> ( Account information disputed by consumer ( Meets requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ). 

Round 3 dispute submitted to XXXX  : XX/XX/year> CERTIFIED MAIL Response ( XXXX  Report # XXXX ) : XX/XX/year> What I Did : Disputed inaccurate and unverifiable tradelines with XXXX three times.

Sent direct validation letters to all data furnishers, including : Portfolio Recovery Associates XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Despite my efforts, XXXX  failed to delete or verify key information under 1681i and 1681s-2 ( b ), even after the 30-day window for reinvestigation. No original signed contracts, itemized statements, or legally sufficient verification were provided.

Supporting Facts : All disputed accounts were marked updated after each dispute without validation.

No documentation was supplied by XXXX  or furnishers to verify the accounts per 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) or 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). 

XXXX  is reporting the same debt twice : XXXX XXXX ( closed, charge-off for {$1600.00}, account ending XXXX ) XXXX  reports a charged-off account with a balance, but the original creditor sold the debt and no longer holds the balance.

The same balance is being reported by both the original creditor and a debt buyer, inflating your debt.

Balance continues to update as if the creditor is still owed money when theyve already sold the account. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX ( collection account for {$1600.00}, also account ending XXXX, listing XXXX as the original creditor ) This is double reporting of the same debt under different names, violating the FCRAs requirement for accuracy and fair reporting.

Portfolio Recovery Associates is reported twice : XXXX  is inaccurately reporting two separate collection tradelines from Portfolio Recovery Associates under the same account number ending in XXXX and the same original creditor ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX. ). 

One tradeline shows a balance of {$450.00}, and the other shows {$1200.00}. Both are listed as active collections with Portfolio Recovery. These are being reported as two separate debts, but they stem from the same original XXXX XXXX account, and have the same Portfolio Recovery account number. 

This inaccurate duplication inflates my total debt burden, misrepresents my creditworthiness, and constitutes a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically : 1681e ( b ) for failing to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; 1681i for failing to correct the inaccurate and misleading information after dispute ; and 1681s-2 ( b ) if the furnisher failed to properly investigate and correct this duplicative reporting.

I have disputed this information with XXXX  and have only received a vague updated result, but both accounts remain on my report with conflicting balances. I request an immediate reinvestigation and removal of the inaccurate tradeline. 

Original creditors ( e.g., XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX  XXXX ) are no longer showing on my XX/XX/year> report, while the related debt buyers ( XXXX and XXXX ) remain. 

This breaks the chain of ownership and reporting integrity, leaving no clear view of account history. 

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX was removed from XXXX  after repeated disputes, but no documentation or confirmation was provided to me. 

XXXX  responded to disputes with pre-written updates, not detailed investigations, and simply marked most items as updated without changing the status or verifying accuracy.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation