Consumer complaint received 2026-04-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Westlake Services, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding a collection account ( Account XXXX. XXXX on XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX ) that XXXX is reporting on all three of my credit reports. This account, with a reported balance of {$5100.00}, is allegedly based on a debt from Westlake Financial Services. I dispute the accuracy and validity of this collection for multiple reasons documented below, supported by credit reports and dispute results from all three bureaus spanning from XXXX through XXXX. Issue 1 : Double-Reporting / Dual Tradeline Westlake Financial Services continues to report a charge-off of {$5100.00} on my credit reports as a closed account with " {$5100.00} written off. '' Simultaneously, XXXX XXXX XXXX reports a {$5100.00} collection for the same underlying debt. This means my credit reports show {$10000.00} in negative items for what is actually a single {$5100.00} obligation. Westlake 's account shows a {$0.00} balance as of XX/XX/XXXX, confirming the debt was transferred yet both tradelines remain on my credit reports, artificially inflating my reported delinquent debt. This violates FCRA Section 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which requires furnishers to report accurate information, and FDCPA Section 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), which prohibits false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt. Issue 2 : Unauthorized Hard Inquiries Before Account Assignment XXXX records show that XXXX XXXX XXXX made hard inquiries on my credit file on the following dates : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX 's own reported account opening and assignment date is XX/XX/XXXX. This means XXXX pulled my credit three times before the debt was even assigned to them. Hard inquiries require permissible purpose under FCRA Section 1681b ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). XXXX had no permissible purpose to access my credit file before the debt was assigned. A fourth inquiry was made on XX/XX/XXXX. These unauthorized inquiries damaged my credit score and constitute willful violations of FCRA Section 1681b. Issue 3 : Sham Verifications Across Multiple Bureaus I have disputed this account multiple times across multiple credit bureaus, and each time the result has been a rubber-stamp verification with no meaningful investigation. My first XXXX dispute, dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX. XXXX ), resulted in " Remains '' XXXX certified the information as accurate with no changes. My second XXXX dispute, dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX. XXXX ), produced the identical outcome : " Remains, '' with the same certification. My XXXX dispute, dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Confirmation No. XXXX ), resulted in " Verified and Updated '' but the only fields modified were " Additional Information, '' " Balance Date, '' and " Status Date. '' No substantive investigation was conducted into the accuracy of the underlying debt amount, the legitimacy of the collection assignment, or the double-reporting issue. These are textbook sham verifications. XXXX certified accuracy three times across two bureaus without addressing any of the substantive issues I raised : the double-reporting, the unauthorized inquiries, or the contradictory underlying Westlake data . Issue 4 : Underlying Debt Amount Was Never Properly Verified The {$5100.00} collection amount is based on Westlake Financial 's reported charge-off, but Westlake 's own data changed five times across six disputes. On XX/XX/XXXX, the balance was reported as {$7300.00} with a recent payment of {$590.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, the balance changed to {$7100.00} with a recent payment of {$570.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, the balance was reported as {$7300.00}, and the status changed to " Repossession. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, the balance dropped to {$5100.00}, the status changed to " Charge-Off, '' and the recent payment changed to {$570.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, the balance was reported as {$0.00}, with a status of " Closed. {$5100.00} written off, '' and the recent payment inexplicably changed to {$2800.00}. XXXX is collecting {$5100.00} based on data from an original creditor whose own records were never stable or verified. When I disputed XXXX 's account, they simply re-certified the {$5100.00} figure without independently verifying it against Westlake 's contradictory records. Issue 5 : Conflicting Information Across Bureaus The data XXXX furnishes differs across the three major credit bureaus in material ways. Removal dates differ : XXXX reports " On Record Until XX/XX/XXXX '' while XXXX reports " Estimated month and year this item will be removed XX/XX/XXXX '' a two-month discrepancy. There is also an address discrepancy : the XXXX dispute result ( Confirmation No. XXXX ) lists XXXX 's address as " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX '' with phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX, while the XXXX credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX, and the XXXX credit report list " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CT XXXX '' with phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX. The date of first delinquency is reported by XXXX as XX/XX/XXXX this date should be consistent across all bureaus but varies in how it is reflected in the removal date calculations. These inconsistencies demonstrate that the bureaus are not conducting meaningful reinvestigations and that XXXX is furnishing inconsistent data to different bureaus. Issue 6 : FDCPA Violations XXXX is a " debt collector '' as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a ( 6 ) they purchased or were assigned this debt from Westlake Financial after the account was charged off. Reporting a collection amount based on unverified, contradictory original creditor data constitutes a false representation of the amount of a debt in violation of Section 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ). Continuing to report after disputes without conducting a meaningful investigation violates Section 1692e ( 8 ) communicating credit information known or which should be known to be false. The double-reporting, whereby both Westlake 's charge-off and XXXX 's collection appear simultaneously, constitutes an unfair practice under Section 1692f by artificially inflating reported delinquent debt. XXXX 's unauthorized hard inquiries constitute unfair practices under Section 1692f ( 1 ). I have disputed this account multiple times across multiple bureaus. Each time, XXXX has certified its accuracy without conducting a genuine investigation. The double-reporting, the unauthorized credit pulls before the debt was even assigned, the contradictory underlying data from Westlake, and the inconsistencies across bureaus all demonstrate that XXXX is not reporting accurate information and is not complying with its obligations under federal law. I am requesting immediate corrective action.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation