Consumer complaint received 2026-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
IN THE MATTER AT HAND, Complainant contends that the information furnished, verified, updated, and repeatedly re-published by Discover Financial Services ( XXXX ) to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and any other Consumer Reporting Agency is facially illogical, patently inaccurate, materially misleading, internally inconsistent, and incapable of reasonable verification as accurate. XXXX has verified and re-verified the disputed information as accurate notwithstanding discordant CRA reporting, contradictory payment-history reporting, incompatible DoFD and delinquency-anchor information, inconsistent obsolescence-derived reporting, and documentary contradictions. Such conduct violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and Regulation V, including 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E to Part 1022. DEFINITIONS 1. Consumer File means a consumers file within the meaning of FCRA 603 ( g ), 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( g ) : all information on that consumer recorded and retained by a Consumer Reporting Agency, regardless of how that information is stored. The term is used to identify the body of information maintained by a Consumer Reporting Agency, including any item of information subject to reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), and does not imply that a furnisher itself maintains a Consumer File. 2. Consumer Reporting Agency or CRA has the meaning assigned to that term in FCRA 603 ( f ), 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ), and includes any person who, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and who uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. 3. Furnisher means a person or entity that furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more Consumer Reporting Agencies for inclusion in a consumer report, as that term is used in FCRA 623, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, and defined in Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.41 ( c ). 4. Indirect Dispute means a dispute submitted by a consumer to a Consumer Reporting Agency concerning the completeness or accuracy of information contained in the consumers Consumer File, where the Consumer Reporting Agency provides notice of the dispute to the Furnisher. The term includes disputes that trigger a furnishers duties under FCRA 623 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), after notice from a Consumer Reporting Agency . 5. Direct Dispute means a dispute submitted directly to a Furnisher by a consumer concerning the accuracy of information contained in a consumer report and pertaining to an account or other relationship that the Furnisher has or had with the consumer, within the meaning of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.41 ( b ). The term includes disputes governed by 12 C.F.R. 1022.43. 6. Dispute means either a Direct Dispute or an Indirect Dispute, as the context requires. 7. Reinvestigation means a Consumer Reporting Agencys investigation or reinvestigation of disputed information under FCRA 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i. When used with respect to a Furnisher, the term refers only to the Furnishers investigation, review, correction, deletion, modification, blocking, or reporting obligations after receiving notice of a dispute, and does not imply that the Furnisher is itself a Consumer Reporting Agency. 8. Furnisher Duties means the duties imposed on a Furnisher by FCRA 623, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. Part 1022, Subpart E, and any other applicable implementing regulation. The term includes, without limitation, the duties to furnish information accurately, to correct and update information, to provide notice of disputed information where required, to provide the Date of First Delinquency where required, and, after receiving notice of an Indirect Dispute from a Consumer Reporting Agency, to conduct a reasonable investigation, review all relevant information provided by the Consumer Reporting Agency, report the results of the investigation, and modify, delete, permanently block, or otherwise correct information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. 9. Date of First Delinquency or DoFD means the month and year of the first delinquency in the continuous sequence of delinquency that allegedly led to the reported derogatory status, charge-off, collection, placement for collection, transfer, write-off, scheduled removal, estimated removal, obsolescence date, or other adverse account condition. See Shaw v. Equifax Info. Sols., Inc. , 204 F. Supp. 3d 956, 961 ( E.D. XXXX XXXX ) ( addressing an Experian-disputed tradeline and relying on the reports obsolescence/continued-reporting date to evaluate whether repeated charge-off notations were misleading ) ; Shelton v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc. , No. 2:23-cv-10543, slip op. at 8 ( E.D. Mich. XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( addressing TransUnion estimated-removal reporting as indicating the operative delinquency timing ). 10. Delinquency anchor means any express DoFD, implied DoFD, payment-history sequence, charge-off notation, account-status field, scheduled-removal date, estimated-removal date, obsolescence field, on record until date, scheduled to go positive date, or other reporting field from which the beginning of the derogatory sequence may be derived, inferred, calculated, or relied upon. 11. Obsolescence-derived DoFD means a Date of First Delinquency inferred from a scheduled-removal date, estimated-removal date, on record until date, scheduled to go to a positive status date, or similar reporting field that reflects when derogatory information is scheduled to age off or cease being reported as adverse. 12. Derogatory information includes, without limitation, any charge-off status, charge-off remark, derogatory payment rating, delinquency code, past-due indicator, scheduled-removal date, estimated-removal date, obsolescence field, collection-related notation, or other adverse item associated with the account. 13. Payment History means the month-by-month reporting of an accounts payment performance, including whether each reported month was reported as current, paid as agreed, late, delinquent, charged off, in collection, deferred, in forbearance, transferred, closed, or otherwise assigned a payment rating or status. The term includes both the coded payment history furnished to a Consumer Reporting Agency and the corresponding payment history displayed in a consumer report or file disclosure. 14. Account Status means the reported status or condition of an account as of a given reporting period, including whether the account is reported as open, closed, transferred, paid, unpaid, current, past due, charged off, written off, placed for collection, included in bankruptcy, or otherwise derogatory. The term includes any status field, account-condition field, narrative status, account remark, or equivalent reporting that communicates the accounts present or historical credit status. 15. Compliance Condition means any reported code, notation, remark, narrative, status, or equivalent field indicating whether the consumer disputes, disputed, or previously disputed the completeness or accuracy of reported account information. The term includes dispute notations, post-dispute remarks, consumer-dispute codes, and any equivalent field used to communicate that reported information is disputed, was disputed, or was verified or updated following a dispute. 16. Facially Illogical Tradeline means a tradeline with account statuses, codes, payment-history entries, dates, remarks, or other reported fields that are plainly or logically inconsistent with other information reported for the same account, such that, if included in a consumer report, at least one item of information would necessarily be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or unverifiable. See Fair Credit Reporting ; Facially False Data, 87 Fed. Reg. 64689, 64690 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). SUPPORTING FACTS 1. The Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) reflected in the files and reports maintained and disseminated by Equifax is facially illogical because XXXX own payment-history profile for the same XXXX tradeline reflects an OK or Paid On Time rating for XXXX XXXX 2. The DoFD reflected in the files, reports, and reinvestigation results maintained and disseminated by Equifax is facially illogical, internally inconsistent, and materially unreliable. Equifax repeatedly reflected or relied upon a XXXX XXXX DoFD for the XXXX tradeline across multiple disputes and reinvestigation results. But the same XXXX tradeline reflects an OK or Paid On Time payment rating for XXXX XXXX. Thus, the XXXX reporting is not reasonably verifiable as accurate because the asserted DoFD is contradicted on the face of the same tradeline by the payment-history data for the very month alleged to be the first delinquency. 3. The DoFD reflected in the files, reports, and reinvestigation results maintained and disseminated by XXXX is likewise facially illogical, internally inconsistent, and materially unreliable. XXXX has not reflected a stable or coherent Date of First Delinquency for the XXXX tradeline. Instead, XXXX reports and investigation results have reflected or implied multiple different DoFDs for the same account, including XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and later XXXX XXXX. In addition, XXXX has reported the account as remaining On record until XXXX XXXX, which necessarily implies, by operation of the FCRAs seven-year obsolescence period for charge-off-related information, an XXXX XXXX DoFD. Yet the same tradeline reflects a payment rating of Current/ Terms met for XXXX XXXX Thus, the XXXX reporting is not merely inaccurate as to a single month ; the DoFD reflected by the files and reports for the tradeline has shifted repeatedly and can not be reconciled with the payment-history data, the obsolescence date, or Discovers repeated verifications. 4. The DoFD reflected in the files and reports maintained and disseminated by XXXX is likewise facially illogical. XXXX reports an Estimated month and year this item will be removed of XXXX XXXX, which necessarily implies, by operation of the FCRAs seven-year obsolescence period for charge-off-related information, a XXXX XXXX DoFD. Yet XXXX XXXX can not reasonably be reconciled with the DoFD reflected or implied by XXXX, the DoFD reflected or implied by XXXX XXXX own asserted XXXX XXXX DoFD, and the payment-history data appearing on the XXXX XXXX. 5. The DoFD information associated with the XXXX tradeline is not merely inaccurate within a single CRA file ; it is discordant across XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX reflects or relies upon a XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX DoFD ; Experian reflects or implies an XX/XX/XXXX XXXX through its obsolescence date ; and TransUnion reflects or implies a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX through its estimated-removal date. These competing DoFDs can not all be true for the same account, the same alleged delinquency sequence, and the same alleged charge-off event. 6. Several payment-history ratings for months after the asserted XXXX XXXX DoFD likewise reflect OK, Paid On Time, or otherwise non-delinquent payment ratings. Accordingly, the DoFDs reflected, derived, or relied upon in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX versions of the XXXX account are facially illogical, internally inconsistent, mutually incompatible, and incapable of reasonable verification as accurate. 7. Because the DoFD is the predicate event from which subsequent derogatory reporting flows, any charge-off status, charge-off remark, charge-off-related payment rating, obsolescence calculation, delinquency progression, or continued reporting period dependent on those DoFDs is likewise facially illogical, inaccurate, materially misleading, and incapable of reasonable verification by XXXX as a matter of fact. XXXX has continued to verify, update, and furnish information that it knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is patently incorrect, internally inconsistent, materially misleading, or incapable of reasonable verification as accurate. 8. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX each received a copy of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX response as part of the supporting materials Complainant submitted with his respective notices of dispute under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ). In that response, XXXX alleged that XXXX XXXX was the Date of First Delinquency. 9. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX each communicated Complainants notice of dispute and supporting materials to XXXX pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ), thereby triggering Discovers duties as a furnisher of information under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42, and Appendix E to Part 1022. 10. In response to those CRA-referred disputes, XXXX provided ACDV responses verifying, updating, certifying, or otherwise confirming the disputed account information, including the DoFD and charge-off-related reporting, as accurate. 11. Because the XXXX XXXX DoFD asserted by XXXX is contradicted on the face of the CRA tradeline data, and because the XXXX tradeline reflects discordant DoFD information across XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the disputed reporting is incapable of reasonable verification as accurate. A furnisher can not reasonably verify the same account as accurate while the account simultaneously reflects mutually incompatible DoFDs, non-delinquent payment ratings for the asserted delinquency months, and obsolescence dates that imply different first-delinquency events. XXXX verification does not cure the facial contradiction ; it confirms it. 12. XXXX continued verification of the disputed information after receiving CRA-transmitted disputes and supporting documentation was not a reasonable investigation within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Rather, XXXX either failed to review the information provided by the CRAs, failed to reconcile its own asserted DoFD with the payment-history data appearing on the tradelines, failed to account for the discordant DoFD information across the CRAs, or knowingly re-verified information that was facially inconsistent, materially misleading, and incapable of reasonable verification as accurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation