Consumer complaint received 2025-05-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
RE : Complaint for violation of the 15 U.S. Code Chapter 41 - CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT HERE COMES NOW, XXXX XXXX, the consumer and the petitioner in this case, humbly and respectfully filing a complaint against the following credit bureaus and reporting agencies hereby as the respondents ; Experian, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( 1 ) ( A ) - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies which states that, ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.

The Consumer Protection Act under 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports, allows the credit reporting agencies and bureaus to furnish consumer information when it states, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates as well as ( 3 ) To a person which it has reason to believe ( A ) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer ; or.

The plaintiff filed a dispute to the respondents in regards to the accuracy of the open account against XXXX XXXX and all respondents have not followed the proper procedure and followed the consumers request to completely remove the information from his credit report and to further reassess the credit score in order to increase it to reflect the accuracy of the consumers credit worthiness. 
The plaintiff is currently in litigation against the defendants XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX for predatory lending, where the case is pending at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit under case number 25-1327 and initially filed at the United States District CouXXXX XXXX XXXX Virginia XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX number XXXX. 
The plaintiff asserts that the respondents have instead chosen to follow the orders from the predatory lenders and are aiding them to report negative and inaccurate information that the account is in repossession when in truth, the account is in dispute at a federal court. 
The parties involved in this case are XXXX XXXX XXXX and respondents ExperianXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, thus answering the question of the parties involved in this case. 
The location of the event that occurred that gave rise to this claim is the credit bureaus business location where they furnish the credit reports of all consumers in the United States. 
The date and time of the event that gave rise to this claim is Fri, XXXX XXXX, XXXX after petitioner had called to raise his complaint to the respondent Experian and has yet to remove the complete information about XXXX XXXX XXXX the consumers credit report and to further increase his credit score to a score range between XXXX. 
The legal claim that the petitioner alleges against the respondents is breach of the following federal and state code thus answering the legal claim question : Count 1 : 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( 1 ) ( A ) - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies.- For furnishing inaccurate reports that the open account with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX repossession now, yet the account has been in dispute since XX/XX/XXXX in a federal court therefore it should be reported to be in dispute in court over predatory lending and not repossession. 
Count 2 : 15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy - For failing to investigate the consumers dispute about the accuracy of the reports made by the creditor XXXX XXXX as well as the accuracy of the XXXX XXXX difference from a range of XXXX to a low score of XXXX score which is a XXXX score difference for just XXXX delinquent account that was reported during a national disaster of XXXX where the whole country was in a lockdown with no economic activity going on. 
The factual allegations that caused the rise of this claim are that : Experian XXXX, the respondent Experian violated 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( 1 ) ( A ) - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies when the petitioner filed a complaint to dispute the open account with XXXX XXXX which is reporting that the account is in repossession now, yet the account has been in dispute since XX/XX/XXXX. 
The business entity failed to report that the account is in dispute over predatory lending and more so the petitioner is disputing it now that he does not know anything about this account as there is no loan agreement between the consumer and XXXX XXXX. 
Therefore, reporting that the account is in repossession instead of in dispute in court, is a direct violation of the consumer credit act, but also with no title loan contract connecting the consumer and the business entity XXXX XXXX, the account reported here is null and void and shouldnt have appeared anywhere on the petitioners report and as such the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should order Experian to remove this account from the consumers credit report completely like it never existed. 


Secondly, the petitioner would like to challenge the XXXX XXXX XXXX reported by the respondent Experian because it is also inaccurate and does not represent the factual facts and accurate data of the consumers credit worthiness and as such this inaccurate scores have facilitated the denial of equal credit opportunities against the consumer and the time is now to call them out for this injustice that seems common among people from the majority XXXX and XXXX communities who are the minority and protected groups in our beloved country. 
According to the Experian report, the petitioner has zero 0 public records, 18 inquiries, zero collections and zero 0 open accounts when we remove the current account in dispute as well as removing the stated remaining balance of XXXX $ as this case partains predatory lending in court, but somehow this justifies them to give the petitioner a XXXX XXXX of XXXX which is way too low and should be at a high range of XXXX score. 






The reasons that the credit report gives at the bottom does not make any sense and doesnt match with the facts. For example, the report states that, You have a serious delinquency ( 60 days past due or greater ) or derogatory indicator on your credit report The account the report must be referencing to is from the XXXX XXXX XXXX which was the first auto loan the XXXX had on his report since XX/XX/XXXX and then we had the XXXX pandemic of which in the state of Virginia it was declared a disaster since XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX where the Declaration Date was on XXXX XXXX, XXXX where the consumer already notified the lender about the situation and they acknowledged it. 

Therefore the consumer being late for payment on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX at time the whole country was shut down with mandatory lockdown, face masks and hand sanitizing, there was no viable economic activity going on at that time, yet the creditor still reported that the consumer was late for payment and the credit bureau Experian also posted the information, which is unfair and inaccurate reporting because the circumstance were out of control of the consumer and there was nothing he could do as the government had already made its declaration and as such the consumer shouldnt have to suffer losing almost XXXX points from a XXXX perfect credit score to a XXXX score. 



The other account that also states delinquency is the current account with XXXX XXXX that is in dispute in court and as stated above, this account and all its remarks about late payment, repossession and its entire existence is fraud and deceptive business practice and as such the CFPB should order the immediate removal of the XXXX $ balance and any remarks, inquiries and mentioning of its name anywhere on the consumer credit report. 

The petitioner asserts that Experian is unable to justify why they failed to report that the account with XXXX XXXX is in dispute in a federal court after the petitioner informed them about this information and rather than to close the account and remove the entire information completely, they partially took action by closing the account, but still allowed the creditor to report the balance owed, the late payment and the repossession status of which are inaccurate information because the plaintiff disputed the account way before the creditor reported that the account is in repossession. 
The petitioner further claims that it is quite an error and clear evidence of injustice against him and those in similar situation when they neglect to fairly assess the proper credit score by deducting XXXX points for delinquency that took place during a national and state disaster of the XXXX pandemic where the consumer has suffered multiple times the denial of equal credit opportunity because of this negligence from Experian. 
The second reason the Experian credit report gives to justify giving the petitioner such a low score is, Bad payment history. You have one or more accounts showing missed payments or derogatory indicators. Number of your accounts with a missed payment or derogatory indicator : 2 accounts.

The petitioner notes that this is the same reason of delinquency given above of which the definition is the failure to pay an outstanding debt and as such saying the same thing using different words so as to justify giving the petitioner a low score is a deceptive and unfair business practice from the credit bureau which should be condemned by the CFPB by ordering them to remove the account with XXXX XXXX as well as the late payments from XXXX XXXX XXXX and to further increase the petitioners scores to a range of XXXX. 
The third reason that Experian gives under the credit report of the petitioner to be the reason for giving such a low score to him is that, Few accounts paid on time. You have an insufficient number of accounts that are currently paid as agreed. Number of your accounts currently being paid as agreed : 0 accounts.

The plaintiff notes again this is just using semantics to use different words to say the same thing in order to confuse the consumer and justify the injustice of giving them a low credit score that they dont deserve.

The report stating that the petitioner has few accounts paid on time, bad payment history and delinquency are all one and the same thing and it does not and should not cost XXXX points for missing a payment during a national disaster crisis that was declared by the government, especially when the credit bureaus received additional federal funding because of the disaster, but they saw no problem reporting adverse remarks on all consumers whose accounts were not paid during this time because of the lockdown. 
Lastly, the Experian credit report claims that the petitioner has, Lack of recent credit card information. There is insufficient or no recent activity on credit cards and/or bank-issued open-ended accounts. 
The petitioner asserts that this is also another false and misleading information because when the account with XXXX XXXX was open and collecting payments every month, his XXXX XXXX was still in the XXXX range and therefore there is no valid proof that shows when you have a recent credit activity, your credit score goes up and as such using this information to justify the deduction of XXXX points from a XXXX score to a XXXX score constitutes an unfair, deceptive and inaccurate XXXX XXXX information which should be condemned with the strongest terms possible by the people of the United States as well as the CFPB who should intervene and order the credit bureaus to remove the petitioners account with XXXX and any negative remarks on his missed payments during the pandemic as well as increase his score to a XXXX score range. 
JURISDICTION, the XXXX notes that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has jurisdiction over this matter involving credit reporting bureaus and agencies pursuant to 12 U.S. Code 5492 - Executive and administrative powers, and as such the people of Virginia are formally requesting that the CFPB retain jurisdiction over this matter and exercise it fully to intervene in the dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondents.

REQUESTED RELIEF, the petitioner humbly and kindly requests that his account and all negative remarks posted by XXXX XXXX should be removed completely, the late payments from the XXXX XXXX XXXX should be removed as the report was made during a national pandemic and disaster of the Covid XXXX and lastly to increase his credit score from XXXX to a XXXX score range in order to settle all claims of violation of the consumer credit act with no admission of liability from any of the respondents. 
THEREFORE, the petitioner alleges that the respondent Experian is engaging in unfair and inaccurate reporting of the consumers credit report of his credit score as a measure of his credit worthiness which violated 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( 1 ) ( A ) - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies whereby the petitioner filed a complaint to dispute the open account with XXXX XXXX which is reporting that the account is in repossession, yet the account has been in dispute since XX/XX/XXXX in the federal court of law. 
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully files this complaint and swears under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true to the best of his knowledge and as such is requesting the CFPB to grant the petitioners request for relief in order to settle the claim against the respondents amicably without much litigation in court.

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