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: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint because the account being reported under CCB/PETCOMC, with identifying digits XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, appears on my credit report as a derogatory charge-off/collection account, but it has never been properly validated, verified, substantiated, or supported with required documentation. Despite disputing this account through the appropriate channels and requesting verification, neither the furnisher ( CCB/PETCOMC ) nor the credit reporting agencies have provided any proof that the information being furnished is accurate, complete, or legitimately associated with me. 

I am disputing this account because I have not received any original documentation, any account-level evidence, or any verification that would demonstrate the legitimacy of the account, the accuracy of the reporting, or the compliance of the furnisher with federal law. 

This detailed statement explains what happened, what steps I took, how the credit bureaus and the furnisher responded, and why CFPB assistance is needed. 

1. How the CCB/PETCOMC Account Appears on My Credit Report The tradeline listed under CCB/PETCOMC ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX currently appears with the following information : Status : Collection/Charge-Off Past Due Amount : {$0.00} Balance : {$0.00} Closed Date : XX/XX/year> Derogatory Codes : Persistent negative payment history and charge-off notation Furnisher : Comenity Capital Bank ( CCB ) servicing Petco Mastercard/credit card accounts Markings : Derogatory status despite balance showing {$0.00} and account showing closed The account displays derogatory markers associated with nonpayment and default, such as : Charge-off indicator Negative payment history Derogatory furnishing code Historical late-payment markings Even though the account is reported with no current balance, the derogatory information remains, significantly harming my creditworthiness. 

Because this derogatory reporting affects credit limits, approval decisions, and personal financial access, it is essential that the information be accurate, complete, and properly validated. At this time, it is not. 

2. I Never Received the Legally Required Documentation Proving the Account Is Valid To this day, I have not received any documentation from CCB/PETCOMC that meets the standards for validation under the FCRA or FDCPA. I have never been provided : A signed application for credit A cardholder agreement Any original contract or agreement The terms & conditions associated with the account Monthly billing statements Transaction histories A ledger of payments and charges Any documentation substantiating the alleged delinquency A statement of how the charge-off was calculated Copies of adverse action notices Proof that I was ever notified of delinquency Any DOFD ( Date of First Delinquency ) records Any accounting showing the progression of the account into default Without these documents, no reasonable investigation or verification can be legitimately completed. No furnisher can lawfully assert the accuracy of derogatory reporting unless it can produce these records. 

3. I Disputed the Account Through All Credit Bureaus but Received No Meaningful Verification Upon discovering this account, I disputed it with all applicable credit bureaus. However, the responses I received were : Extremely fast Lacking evidence Lacking documentation Not reflective of an investigation Based solely on automated system feedback Each bureau replied with a simple statement such as Verified as accurate.

This is not a lawful reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and does not reflect any meaningful review of documents. 

No documents were shared with me, including : No contract No statements No proof of authorization No transaction records No charge-off records No payment history documentation No delinquency notices The bureaus appear to have relied entirely on automated responses through the XXXX system, which exchanges numerical codesnot documentation. 

This violates the requirement to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 

4. I Requested the Method of Verification ( MOV ) and Received No Legally Compliant Response Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), consumers may request the Method of Verification, which requires the bureaus to disclose : Who verified the account The documents reviewed The process used to complete the reinvestigation Whether the verification was manual or automated What evidence the furnisher supplied Copies of data or documents relied upon None of this was provided. 

Instead, the bureaus returned superficial, generic responses that failed to include : Any specific names Any documentary evidence Any procedural explanation Any human involvement Any verification of the DOFD or charge-off Any underlying records This is not compliance with the statutory requirement for a Method of Verification. 
It also suggests that the reinvestigation was automated, not documentary. 

5. The Furnisher Did Not Provide Validation or Verification Either I have not been provided with a single validating document from CCB/PETCOMC.

A proper furnisher response requires : Original applications Full account histories Detailed statements Evidence of each delinquency DOFD verification Charge-off accounting Proof of ownership/servicing rights None were provided. 

If the furnisher cannotand has notprovided documentation, then derogatory reporting is not lawful. 

6. There Are Many Reporting Errors and Inconsistencies A. The Past-Due Balance Is Reported as {$0.00} but the Account Remains Derogatory A zero-dollar past-due amount does not substantiate derogatory status, especially without documentation. 

B. No DOFD Provided The Date of First Delinquency is a required field for charge-offs. 

Missing DOFD may be evidence of illegal re-aging.

C. Contradictory Status Codes The account is : Closed XXXX balance But still flagged as derogatory charge-off This is logically inconsistent. 

D. No Payment History Evidence Exists Yet negative history codes are present.

E. No Proof of Permissible Purpose There is no documentation indicating the account is legitimately tied to me or authorized by me.

All of these inconsistencies violate the FCRA accuracy requirements.

7. The Reporting Has Caused Me Harm This derogatory account has caused : Lower credit scores Higher interest rates Credit denials Reduced credit limits Difficulty obtaining favorable financing terms Negative impacts on financial opportunities Because the furnisher failed to validate the account, this harm is unjustified.

8. I Attempted to Resolve This Before Filing a CFPB Complaint Before escalating the issue to the CFPB, I attempted : Disputing the account Requesting reinvestigations Requesting the method of verification Waiting for bureau responses Reviewing the minimal information returned None of these attempts resulted in : Validation Verification Documentation Correction Removal Explanation Therefore, CFPB intervention is now necessary. 

9. Why CFPB Involvement Is Needed CFPB intervention is essential because : The credit bureaus did not perform a real investigation The bureaus failed to provide a proper MOV The furnisher did not supply any documentation The reporting contains inconsistencies and errors The reporting may violate multiple FCRA sections Automated systems are being used instead of lawful reinvestigations Only the CFPB can compel compliance with federal law.

10. Summary of What Happened To summarize the complete situation : CCB/PETCOMC is reporting a derogatory charge-off account. 

No documentation has ever been supplied proving account ownership. 

The credit bureaus failed to conduct lawful reinvestigations. 

Automated systems were used instead of document-based verification. 

The account contains multiple inconsistencies and reporting errors. 

The tradeline has caused significant harm. 

No entity has produced a single piece of evidence to prove the account is valid. 

Because of this, the account as currently reported is unverifiable and inaccurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation