Consumer complaint received 2025-11-19 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this statement to describe in full detail what happened regarding the SYNCBXXXX account currently appearing on my credit reports as a derogatory collection/charge-off. The purpose of this complaint is to bring forward the events, inaccuracies, procedural concerns, and legal compliance issues connected to the reporting of this account. From my perspective as the consumer, the manner in which this account has been reported, verified, and maintained raises significant questions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and other applicable consumer protection laws. Because the information continues to appear despite disputes and inconsistencies, I am requesting a full review of the facts. 

To begin, the SYNCB/XXXX account was reported as a collection or charge-off with a past-due amount that I do not recognize and can not validate. I do not have any record in my personal financial history that aligns with the details being reported, nor do I recall entering into any agreement or receiving any notifications that would have reasonably alerted me to this account before its appearance on my credit report. When derogatory information suddenly appears without prior communication, written notification, or any legally required validation, it creates immediate suspicion regarding its accuracy and completeness.

What makes the situation more concerning is that the reporting of this account appears inconsistent with the procedures required under federal law. At no point prior to the appearance of the derogatory entry was I contacted by the creditor or a collection agency regarding any alleged outstanding balance. I did not receive billing statements, notices of delinquency, right-to-cure notices, or validation letters. There were no communications alerting me to any late payments or any attempts by the creditor to resolve an alleged debt before escalating it to a derogatory status.

A properly managed creditorconsumer relationship includes transparency, notification, and opportunity to correct or resolve discrepancies. None of that occurred. Instead, the account surfaced unexpectedly on my credit report marked as a severe derogatory entry, which is harmful, alarming, and inconsistent with appropriate consumer protections.

Upon discovering this derogatory reporting, I took immediate action by initiating disputes with the credit bureaus to request verification, validation, and correction. My expectation was that, in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ), the bureaus and furnisher would conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the information being reported was accurate, complete, and verifiable. However, the reinvestigation results indicated that the furnisher allegedly verified the information without providing any documentation, explanation, or method of verification. No billing statements, signed agreements, itemized balances, or proof of ownership were produced.

This creates serious concerns. A verification that does not include documentation is not a legal verification. FCRA 607 ( b ) requires that furnishers maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. If the furnisher did not provide supporting documentation to justify the inclusion of the account, then the reinvestigation should not have resulted in confirmation of the derogatory status.

The lack of transparency in the verification process suggests that the furnisher may have relied solely on automated data matching through the e-OSCAR system. Such automated match-only responses often fail to include any real investigation or review of underlying records. If that occurred, then the reinvestigation was not reasonable and did not satisfy the requirements of federal law.

Furthermore, SYNCB accounts are often associated with retail financing programs, promotional credit lines, or store-branded credit cards. In my situation, I do not recall having any account with this category of creditor during the period relevant to the alleged delinquency. I did not sign any applications, authorize any purchases, activate any accounts, or utilize any credit product associated with SYNCB/XXXX. The absence of memory alone does not invalidate an account, but when combined with the lack of documentation provided by the furnisher, it creates a strong likelihood that the account may be inaccurately attributed, incorrectly reported, or may have resulted from internal data errors, account reassignment, system conversions, or misapplied information.

Another issue concerns the reporting timeline. According to the credit bureaus, this account shows multiple late payments or delinquency stages prior to being charged off or sent to collections. However, none of these supposed delinquency steps were communicated to me. Consumers are entitled to receive notices, including monthly statements and delinquency warnings. The fact that none were received suggests either that the creditor did not send them ( a procedural failure ) or that the account may not have belonged to me at all. If the furnisher can not demonstrate that required notices were sent, then the delinquency itself can not be considered valid.

Additionally, the account balance being reported appears inconsistent with typical SYNCB account charges. Many SYNCB credit lines have specific fee structures, promotional interest rules, and purchase limits. The past-due amount listed for this account does not align with any purchases I recognize, nor does it match any amounts I would have been expected to pay if such an account had actually existed. Without itemization or explanation, it is impossible for me to determine whether the amount is accurate or inflated. Creditors are required to maintain itemized statements in order to validate debt under FDCPA 809 ( b ). If they can not provide such itemization, then reporting the balance is improper.

When I disputed the account, I explained that I did not recognize it and requested full validation. I asked for documentation proving that the account belonged to me, proving the charges were valid, proving I had been properly billed, and proving the furnisher had the right to report it. Instead of responding with documentation, the account remained on my report without change, suggesting that the furnisher may not have conducted a meaningful investigation.

Another issue is the potential reassignment or sale of the debt. It is unclear whether the account was ever transferred to another entity before being charged off. If the debt was transferred or sold, then the chain of assignment becomes critical to establishing ownership. Without a proper chain of title, no furnisher has the right to report negative information or attempt collection. If the current furnisher can not prove ownership or proper assignment, then the reporting is unlawful.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the furnisher complied with FDCPA validation requirements before or after reporting the account. If a debt collector or collection-related entity was involved at any stage, they were required to provide a written validation notice within five days of their first communication. Because I never received such a notice, the reporting may violate FDCPA guidelines.

I also have concerns that the account may have been the result of identity-related issues. I am not alleging confirmed identity theft, but errors sometimes occur when accounts are opened under similar names, outdated addresses, or mixed files. Credit bureaus sometimes merge consumer files when information appears similar, even when the accounts belong to different individuals. Considering that SYNCB issues a wide variety of store-branded credit products, it is possible that mishandled data, a misapplied account, or internal system error caused this entry to appear under my report.

The credit bureaus also list an opening date, delinquency dates, and charge-off date that do not align with any known activity in my financial history. These inconsistencies further support my concern that the reporting is inaccurate.

Additionally, the reporting pattern could violate FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), which requires furnishers to report accounts as disputed when a consumer initiates a dispute. In some credit bureau versions of my report, the dispute notation did not appear. This is a compliance issue because failing to properly flag a disputed account misleads lenders and damages creditworthiness.

The appearance of this derogatory account has caused significant harm, including lowered credit scores, reduced access to credit opportunities, increased interest rates, and negative impacts on financial stability. These consequences are severe, and when the information causing them may be inaccurate or unverifiable, it becomes vital that a full investigation be completed.

To summarize the core concerns : I do not recognize this account and never received documentation proving its validity.

I did not receive billing statements, delinquency notices, right-to-cure letters, or validation notices.

The furnisher did not provide any original documentation during disputes.

The verification process appears to have lacked a meaningful investigation.

The reported balance and dates are inconsistent with my financial history.

There is no demonstrated chain of assignment or proof of ownership rights.

Required notices under FCRA and FDCPA may not have been provided.

The account may have resulted from internal error, file mixing, or misreporting.

The furnisher may not have complied with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) by marking the account as disputed.

The ongoing reporting continues to cause financial harm despite the lack of validation.

For these reasons, I am requesting a full, lawful, transparent reinvestigation. What happened here reflects a pattern of inaccurate or unsupported reporting that must be addressed. My goal is simple : to ensure that my credit report contains only accurate, verified, legally permissible information. If the furnisher can not provide documentation proving the existence, accuracy, ownership, and validity of the SYNCB/XXXX account, then federal law requires its deletion.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation