Consumer complaint received 2023-08-21 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX is engaging in unlawful, deceptive, and abusive practices that punishes me as a consumer. The information furnished by XXXX XXXX to the CRAs was the result of Billing Errors that XXXX XXXX has failed to correct after multiple attempts. For example, XXXX XXXX stopped generating statements in late XXXX, and failed to mail bills over the majority of that year. XXXX XXXX acknowledges being notified of the statement issue as early as XX/XX/XXXX, but failed to conduct any billing error investigations. Moreover, by XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX provided incorrect instructions to obtain account status information online, for which I filed at least one ( 1 ) additional billing error notice on or around XX/XX/XXXX. The extent of consumer law and banking law violations claimed is as follows : billing errors, trouble receiving statement of account, limited payment options, web payment portal issues and discrimination in XXXX XXXX lending and credit practices against at least two ( 2 ) protected classes, referencing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act/ECOA 12 CFR Part 1002 and Regulation B, and the Americans with Disabilities Act/ADA respectively ; Violations of 12 CFR Part 1006 FDCPA ( Regulation F ), 12 CFR Part 1022 FCRA ( Regulation V ), and 12 CFR Part 1026 TILA ( Reg. Z ) ; No investigation into the alleged billing error with the notification you placed with XXXX XXXX, here inferring XXXX XXXX actions to be unfair or deceptive -referencing CFPA 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) / 12 U.S.C . 5536 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( B ) and unlawful -referencing 12 CFR 1026.13 ; Not receiving accounts statements and thus unable to view or inspect my account ; Reporting of delinquency statuses on my account to the credit bureaus on a routine basis is damaging my credit-worthiness with other current or potential creditors ; and thus I have suffered injury as a result of XXXX XXXX unfair acts or practices ; my account placed for collection by XXXX XXXX after my complaint was filed with the CFPB within the sixty ( 60 ) day period allowed for billing error notices to be filed preceding the charge-off, making the delay in addressing my complaint against XXXX not valid ; purporting that such retaliation by XXXX XXXX is unlawful. While I was never notified of the results of the billing error investigations, It was only after XXXX XXXX collections agent returned the account in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  that XXXX XXXX attempted to resolve billing error issues, yet charged-off the account BEFORE conducting the billing error investigations. 
XXXX XXXX chose to re-age my account on at least two ( 2 ) occasions over XXXX to retroactively rectify the billing errors reported to them over the course of XXXX. However, those attempts resulted in re-aging of alleged debt that was brought current and then randomly reported as past-due months later, the last instance beginning at the end of XXXX and continuing to be advanced thirty ( 30 ) days late until reaching the 180 day threshold in XX/XX/XXXX. It has reported as one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) dayspast-due from that time thru present. The information that XXXX XXXX is furnishing to the CRAs for my account is unverifiable and/or inaccurate and corrections to the data in my account has been arbitrary and capricious, resulting in serious harm to my credit-worthiness. XXXX XXXX has been notified on multiple occasions by myself, via billing errors, and both of its collections agents. XXXX XXXX has allegedly rectified the issue on two ( 2 ) different occasions, but the result has led to me experiencing further harm. XXXX XXXX alleges my account was charged-off on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  due to non-payment. They stopped providing statements, canceled auto billing, and then hired a second collections agent, and provided false and misleading payment instructions for the account. XXXX XXXX alleges they have tried to " reconcile '' any billing errors in the data they furnished to Equifax and the other CRAs. XXXX claims it is in response to multiple billing error notifications I previously filed. Since the alleged XXXX in late XXXX, XXXX has reconciled the account, but began " billing '' again WITHOUT providing me with ANY notification. They did this first in XX/XX/XXXX and continuously marked the account past- due each billing cycle by an additional thirty ( 30 ) days past-due until XX/XX/XXXX. After which, they repeated the pattern through present. The effect has been the re-aging of the account with invalid deliquency that has reported as one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days past-due for the previous four ( 4 ) months. While XXXX may insist the data furnished for this account/tradeline is " accurate '' the furnished information does not meet the maximum possible accuracy requirements under 15 U.S. Code 1681e. IN fact if Equifax examines annotated list of contradictions and other documents attached, it will see that XXXX has responded both to Attorneys General, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency XXXX and the CFPB with contradictory information that make any reasonable individual reaize the account/tradeline as reported by XXXX false/misleading/inaccurate under 15 U.S. Code 1681e. The precedent established within my Federal district makes clear that reporting of false/misleading information violates 15 U.S. Code 1681e. In this context, the information reported need not even be " false '' but may equally be " correct '' information that gives a materially misleading impression ( see : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). Equifax has had multiple opportunities to conduct a reasonable investigation under 15 U.S. Code 1681i, and to examine the near two-hundred pages ( 200 ) of documentation supplied with prior disputes and CFPB complaints regarding this account/tradeline. Instead Equifax have opted instead for results returned through eOSCAR. Given the obvious contradictory nature of XXXX own statements, on their own company letterhead, Equifax knows or should know the information they are reporting for this account/tradeline is false/misleading/inaccrate. The negligence of Equifax has caused and continues to harm me as a consumer. If Equifax refuses to remove this account, then I will file a lawsuit against Equifax for violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i et seq.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation