Consumer complaint received 2024-09-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Problem with personal statement of dispute
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX Last XXXX of XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX United States Re : Demand for Removal of Charge-Off from Credit Report Dear XXXX, I am writing to demand the immediate removal of an inaccurate charge-off reported on my credit report. I have included a Revocation of Power of Attorney revoking Experians POA, as they have not properly acted in their fiduciary capacity to act in the best interest of said beneficiary, XXXX XXXX. Please keep in mind that per YOUR access user guide, it states that charge offs are not accurate reporting transaction history. Additionally, this entry is not only erroneous but also a violation of several state and federal laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), and various sections of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Additionally, this charge-off contravenes the United States Constitution , the Constitution of the State of Texas, specific laws enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) and is inconsistent with established Supreme Court precedent . Furthermore, the securitization and sale of the contract in question constitute aggravated identity theft, adding another layer of legal violation. The account needing immediate removal is listed as follows : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX Account Number XXXX {$0.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX XXXX {$100.00} XXXX Account Number XXXX {$3300.00} Violation of Federal and State Laws : 1. Aggravated Identity Theft : The contract associated with this charge-off has been securitized and sold without my consent, effectively using my personal information and financial identity for profit. This action constitutes aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028A, which imposes severe penalties for knowingly transferring, possessing, or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person in connection with certain felonies. The Supreme Court in Flores-Figueroa v. United States , 556 U.S. 646 ( 2009 ), clarified that aggravated identity theft requires proof that the defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another person, which is relevant here as my identity was unlawfully used in the securitization process.

2. FDCPA Violations : The FDCPA mandates that debt collectors must provide accurate information when reporting to credit bureaus. The reporting of this charge-off is inaccurate and misleading, constituting a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f, which prohibit false or deceptive practices and unfair conduct. The Supreme Court in Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ), affirmed the applicability of the FDCPA to attorneys and other entities engaged in debt collection, emphasizing the importance of accurate and truthful reporting.

3. FCRA Violations : The FCRA requires that information reported to credit bureaus be complete and accurate. According to 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers of information are required to investigate disputes regarding the accuracy of information they provide. The failure to accurately report the status of the account and correct this charge-off violates my rights under the FCRA. Furthermore, 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) explicitly states that transaction histories are not to be reported on credit reports, making the reporting of this charge-off unlawful. The Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 ( 2016 ), underscored the need for concrete and particularized harm when reporting false information, a standard that has been clearly breached in this case.

4. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) : The ECOA, under 15 U.S.C. 1691, prohibits discrimination in credit transactions. Reporting inaccurate information or failing to correct errors may result in discriminatory practices against consumers, particularly if this misinformation affects access to credit. The Supreme Court in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project , Inc., 576 U.S. 519 ( 2015 ), highlighted the implications of disparate impact under ECOA, which could be relevant if inaccurate credit reporting disproportionately affects certain groups.

5. Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) : According to UCC 3-302, a holder in due course must act in good faith. The inaccurate reporting of this charge-off suggests a breach of this duty. Furthermore, UCC 9-625 allows for penalties against parties who fail to comply with the obligations under secured transactions, further compounding the violations involved.

6. IRS Topic 431 - Certificates of Indebtedness : The IRS, under Topic 431, discusses the issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness, which serve as proof of debt or obligation. In this context, the reporting of a charge-off without proper verification or issuance of a valid Certificate of Indebtedness is inconsistent with IRS guidelines and further invalidates the charge-off entry. The legal implications of inaccurate or false Certificates of Indebtedness have been addressed in cases such as United States v. Meyer, 117 F.3d 1425 ( 10th Cir. 1997 ), where the court emphasized the importance of accurate and truthful documentation in debt-related matters.

Securitization and SEC Violations : The contract in question has been securitized, and as per the SEC registration, the beneficiary has not received the benefits due. The interest and dividends accrued have not been applied to the principal balance as required by law, according to the 10-K and 8-K filings with the SEC. This failure constitutes a violation of SEC regulations, particularly under 17 C.F.R. 229.303 ( Management 's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations ) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which mandates accurate financial disclosures. The Supreme Court in Janus Capital Group , Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 ( 2011 ), reinforced the importance of accurate financial statements, a standard that has not been met in this case.

The aforementioned violations also infringe upon my rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution, which protect against unfair practices and ensure due process. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld due process rights in cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 ( 1970 ), which establishes the necessity for fair procedures when one 's property rights are at stake.

Demand for Immediate Action : Given the gravity of these violations, I demand the immediate removal of this charge-off from my credit report. Failure to address this matter promptly will leave me no choice but to pursue further legal action to protect my rights. Please confirm in writing that this erroneous information has been removed from my credit report. I expect a response within 30 days, as mandated by the FCRA. 
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX : CFPB FTC XXXX  Federal Reserve

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation