Consumer complaint received 2025-07-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX  and Equifax are both reporting a late payment on my credit file for XXXX ( Account XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ), with a reporting date of XX/XX/year>XXXX XXXX XXXX, despite the fact that the account is marked as Paid & Closed with a XXXX XXXX and Zero Past Due. This is not only misleading, it is categorically inaccurate. The presence of any derogatory payment history on a tradeline that is fully satisfied, carries no balance, has no delinquency outstanding, and is officially closed represents a direct violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Both bureaus have an explicit obligation under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they include in a consumer 's file. It is not " accurate '' to report a late payment on an account that is paid in full and has no past due amount. Such reporting is deceptive to lenders, distorts my credit profile, and gives the false impression that I have a pattern of delinquency that simply does not exist. A " zero past due '' notation means there is no remaining delinquency. If there is no past due amount and the account has been resolved, any prior marking of a late payment should be carefully evaluated for accuracy and legal reporting relevance.

More troubling is the fact that this error has persisted despite my dispute. I challenged the accuracy of this CELTIC account with both TransUnion and Equifax, and in response, I received the usual automated verified message, without any documentation, no creditor-supplied records, and no meaningful reinvestigation. That is a complete violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires both bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed information. Simply parroting that a late payment is verified without producing any supporting documentation from the creditorespecially on a fully paid and closed accountis not a reinvestigation. It is a refusal to take responsibility.

This inaccurate reporting is not a harmless mistakeit is damaging. I have faced application denials and less favorable terms due to the presence of this unnecessary derogatory notation. Ive been forced to explain to lenders that this tradeline is, in fact, satisfied and not delinquentonly to be doubted because of what these credit bureaus continue to report. The frustration, wasted time, and emotional toll of having to contest an error that should have never made it past initial quality checks is exhausting and unacceptable. Consumers should not have to fight this hard to correct what is plainly incorrect on its face.

At this point, the continued reporting of a late payment on a XXXX account that is Paid & Closed with XXXX Balance and Zero Past Due as of XX/XX/year> is indefensible. There is no financial rationale, no legal justification, and no factual foundation to support this derogatory mark remaining on my report.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation