Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint because GM Financial has been furnishing derogatory, inaccurate, and unverifiable information to the national credit reporting agencies, and the dispute and reinvestigation process for this account has repeatedly failed to meet the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The information GM Financial continues to furnish has caused significant financial harm and has not been corrected despite multiple notices, disputes, and requests for validation. The purpose of this complaint is to request regulatory oversight because the normal dispute channels have not resulted in a fair or lawful resolution.

The specific issue involves an account furnished by GM Financial that appears on my consumer report as a collection or charge-off, showing a past-due balance of approximately {$9000.00}, with a large number of late-payment notations ( including 30-, 60-, and 90-day late entries ) leading up to a reported charge-off date of XX/XX/2025. This tradeline is being reported as derogatory and is negatively impacting my credit standing across all three major credit bureaus.

My dispute concerns the accuracy, completeness, and verifiability of this information. GM Financial has not provided documentation to substantiate the delinquency history, the past-due balance, the dates being reported, or its legal authority to furnish this information. The credit bureaus have also not provided details regarding the verification method used when GM Financial verified the information, despite multiple requests under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) for a detailed description of how the data was confirmed. Because GM Financial has not validated the information and the credit bureaus have relied solely on the furnishers automated responses, the continued reporting of this account constitutes a violation of consumer protection laws governing accuracy in credit reporting and debt collection.

Initial Discovery of the Issue I first became aware of the problem when I obtained updated credit disclosures from all three national credit reporting agencies. The GM Financial account appeared with : A derogatory status A charge-off notation A listed past-due balance of about {$9000.00} Numerous late-payment indicators, including multiple 30-, 60-, and 90-day late entries A closed status with a charge-off date of XX/XX/2025 The information did not match any documentation in my possession, and GM Financial had not provided any notices that would legally substantiate such adverse reporting. There was no clear explanation of how the balance was calculated, how late-payment dates were determined, or whether the debt had been sold, assigned, or transferred.

Dispute and Reinvestigation Attempts After discovering these discrepancies, I initiated disputes with all three credit bureaus. In my disputes, I specifically requested : A full reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) A description of the procedures used to verify the information under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) The source of the information under 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) Copies of all documentation GM Financial provided to substantiate the tradeline Any contract, promissory note, or legal instrument authorizing GM Financial to furnish or collect the alleged balance Despite explicitly requesting this information, the credit bureaus responded with generic statements that the information had been verified by the furnisher without providing any supporting documents, details, or verification procedures. GM Financial did not supply any validation materials or original account records.

Lack of Documentation from GM Financial GM Financial failed to provide any of the following : A copy of the original signed retail installment contract A complete payment history documenting actual missed payments Notices of delinquency, default, right-to-cure, or charge-off Documentation showing how the {$9000.00} past-due balance was calculated Proof of ownership or assignment of the account Statements or billing cycles indicating an actual delinquency timeline Evidence that the data furnished was complete and accurate Without these documents, the derogatory reporting is not verifiable. 

Issues with Verification Through e-OSCAR It appears that the credit bureaus relied on GM Financials responses via the e-OSCAR automated dispute system, which allows furnishers to respond to disputes using standardized codes such as Verified, Updated, or Deleted. This system does not require furnishers to provide documentary proof. A furnisher can simply select a response code, and the bureau will treat the item as verified.

This raises several concerns : No manual review appears to have been conducted.

No supporting documentation seems to have been provided.

e-OSCAR is not designed to transmit contracts, statements, or original account documents.

The furnishers verification may have been based solely on internal data, which may itself be inaccurate.

Therefore, the verification process did not meet the reasonable reinvestigation standard required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ).

Failure to Provide Method of Verification FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) gives consumers the right to receive a detailed description of the procedure used to verify disputed information. Despite invoking this right, none of the credit bureaus provided : The method used to verify the GM Financial tradeline The identity of the person who performed the verification Whether GM Financial reviewed actual records Whether the bureaus received any documents at all Whether automated systems were used Any proof that original documentation existed This omission denied my legal right to understand how the data was confirmed and whether GM Financial complied with verification obligations.

Potential FDCPA Violations The GM Financial account meets the definition of a debt subject to the FDCPA, as it is being reported as a collection or charge-off account. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ) : Debt collectors must provide validation upon request.

Debt collectors must cease collection until validation is provided.

Reporting to credit bureaus constitutes collection activity.

GM Financial did not supply : A validation notice An itemized breakdown of the debt Documentation proving ownership or assignment Any evidence showing the amount is correct Therefore, continued reporting may constitute unlawful collection activity without validation.

Accuracy Concerns Under FCRA 607 ( b ) GM Financial is required to furnish data with maximum possible accuracy. However, the reporting contains multiple red flags : The delinquency dates do not match any known payment history.

There are multiple late entries with no documentation.

The charge-off date appears inconsistent with the reported payment pattern.

The balance appears inflated relative to the contract amount.

No notices of default or acceleration were documented.

The same data appears differently across the three bureaus.

These inconsistencies indicate systemic inaccuracies and procedural failures.

Harm Resulting from GM Financials Reporting Because GM Financial continues to furnish this unverified derogatory information : My creditworthiness has been severely impaired.

I have experienced denials for credit products.

Interest rates on approved credit products have increased.

Lenders have explicitly cited this account as a deciding factor.

My overall credit profile shows a significantly lower score.

The harm is ongoing and directly caused by GM Financials failure to validate or correct the disputed information.

Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation A reasonable reinvestigation under the FCRA requires : Reviewing original source documentation Obtaining records from the furnisher Providing consumers with verification details Deleting unverifiable data None of these requirements were met. GM Financial has not produced documents. The credit bureaus have not verified anything beyond automated responses. As a result, inaccurate and unvalidated information continues to be furnished.

Lack of Transparency Regarding Assignment, Ownership, and Charge-Off Status I have sought documentation establishing : Whether GM Financial still owns the account Whether the debt was sold to a third party Whether it was assigned for collection Whether any third-party collector is involved Who is legally responsible for reporting No documentation or explanation has been provided. If GM Financial no longer owns the account, it may lack legal authority to furnish the information.

Potential Re-Aging of the Account Based on the dates reported, it appears GM Financial may have : Re-aged the account Reported delinquency dates inconsistently Reset the timing of negative information This is unlawful under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), which prohibits furnishers from re-aging accounts to make derogatory information appear more recent.

Failure to Mark the Account as Disputed Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), furnishers must report accounts as disputed by consumer once a dispute is received. GM Financial failed to ensure that all bureaus properly displayed the dispute notation, rendering the tradeline misleading.

Request for Regulatory Assistance Because GM Financial and the credit bureaus have not complied with their statutory obligations, I am requesting CFPB intervention. At minimum, the following issues require review : Why GM Financial failed to validate the alleged balance Whether GM Financial conducted a lawful reinvestigation Whether GM Financial reviewed any original-source documentation Whether GM Financial used automated systems instead of evidence Whether GM Financial violated FDCPA validation requirements Whether the bureaus violated FCRA by accepting unverifiable data Whether reinsertion or re-aging occurred Whether the tradeline should be permanently deleted I have exhausted all consumer-level dispute avenues. The companies involved have not taken the legally required steps to validate or correct the information.

Conclusion In summary, GM Financial is reporting a derogatory account that appears to be inaccurate, incomplete, and unverifiable. GM Financial has failed to provide validation. The credit bureaus have failed to provide verification details. The information remains on my report without documentation supporting its accuracy. The reporting has caused significant harm, and the dispute process has not corrected the issue.

I am asking the CFPB to review this matter and require GM Financial to produce full documentation demonstrating the accuracy and legitimacy of the reported information. If GM Financial can not provide original records, the tradeline should be permanently deleted from all consumer reporting agency files in accordance with the FCRA. A fair outcome requires accuracy, transparency, and validation, all of which are currently lacking.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation