Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint because the account being reported by EXETER FINANCE ( listed on my XXXX  credit report as a derogatory collection/charge-off account closed around XX/XX/XXXX ) is inaccurate, unverifiable, incomplete, and has not been validated or properly reinvestigated under federal law. Despite multiple disputes and requests for documentation, EXETER FIN has not produced any records supporting the accuracy of the reported information, nor has XXXX  provided any documentation showing that a meaningful investigation was conducted. 

The reporting of this account is causing ongoing harm to my credit, financial opportunities, and overall consumer standing. I am seeking assistance from the CFPB because attempts to resolve this issue directly with the credit bureau and the furnisher have failed. 

1. How the EXETER FIN Account First Appeared When reviewing my XXXX  credit file, I discovered a derogatory account reported by EXETER FIN. The account was listed as a collection/charge-off, marked closed as of XX/XX/XXXX, and showed a status of derogatory. According to the listing, the past-due amount was {$0.00}, but the entire account was still being reported as a negative piece of credit history. 

What immediately raised concern was the lack of detail associated with the account. For example : There was no reported payment history There were no monthly updates There was no explanation of how the charge-off amount was determined There were no documents or notes from EXETER FIN attached There was no breakdown of principal, interest, fees, or additional charges There was no evidence establishing whether EXETER FIN owned , transferred, or sold the account This lack of detail indicated that the tradeline might have been uploaded through an automated data system without documentary support, verification, or proper compliance with federal consumer reporting laws. 

2. My Initial Dispute With XXXX  After reviewing the account, I submitted a dispute to XXXX. I requested : A full Method of Verification ( MOV ) Copies of any documents EXETER FIN provided to verify the account Any contracts, agreements, or applications associated with the account A copy of the charge-off ledger A copy of the payment history The specific system or database used to verify the information Whether EXETER FIN verified the account using manual review or e-Oscar automated dispute coding TransUnion closed the investigation very quickly and replied with a standard response that the furnisher verified the information. No documents were provided. No notes were provided. No method of verification was disclosed. No evidence of an investigation was offered. 

Under FCRA 611 ( a ), a credit bureau must perform a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information. XXXX  failed to provide evidence that any such reinvestigation occurred. 

3. Dispute Sent Directly to EXETER FINANCE Following XXXX  inadequate reinvestigation, I attempted to resolve the issue by contacting EXETER FIN directly. I sent a written request demanding full validation and supporting documentation under both the FCRA and the FDCPA. 

My request asked EXETER FIN to provide : The full original signed loan contract The Truth in Lending disclosure Itemized billing statements An accounting ledger showing how the account reached a charge-off Proof of default A copy of the repossession documents ( if applicable ) Any deficiency balance calculations A chain of assignment, if the account had been sold or transferred Copies of any adverse action notices Verification records or internal dispute investigation notes Evidence that EXETER FIN had verified the account during the dispute with XXXX  EXETER FIN did not respond with any of the requested documents. No contract, no statements, no letters, no accounting, no proof, no screenshots, no communications, no internal notes absolutely nothing was provided. 

Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a debt collector or furnisher must stop reporting a debt if the consumer disputes it and validation has not been provided. EXETER FIN ignored this requirement and continued to furnish the derogatory information without providing validation.

4. Lack of Documentation & Evidence of Inaccuracy The total absence of documentation from EXETER FIN is particularly concerning given the large size of auto finance contracts and the legal obligations associated with auto loans. A valid auto finance account typically includes : Signed consumer contract Retail installment sales agreement Title information Truth in Lending disclosure pages Payment history printouts Communication logs Repossession documentation ( if applicable ) Loan deficiency notices Debt transfer or charge-off statements None of these were provided. If EXETER FIN had the documents, it would have been simple to produce them. Their failure to do so strongly implies that : They no longer possess the records They did not verify the information The reporting is inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated The account should have been removed as unverifiable This raises major compliance concerns under FC

RA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or should know is inaccurate.

5. XXXX Failed to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation XXXX  reinvestigation appears to have relied solely on EXETER FIN sending an automated response through e-Oscar. Courts have repeatedly held that this does not meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation. 

Case law examples : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) : The bureau must do more than rely on furnisher responses ; it must conduct an independent investigation. 

XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : A credit bureau can not merely parrot the furnishers response. 

These cases establish that XXXX  violated its obligations by failing to examine supporting documentation or require EXETER FIN to produce evidence. 

6. Failure to Mark the Account as Disputed Even though I disputed the account multiple times, XXXX  did not consistently mark the EXETER FIN tradeline as consumer disputes this account, which is required under : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Furnishers must notify the credit bureau when a consumer disputes information.

Failing to report the account as disputed misleads potential creditors and employers into believing the information is confirmed and uncontested.

7. Continued Reporting Without Validation ( FDCPA Violation ) Because EXETER FIN never produced validation, they should have ceased reporting the account entirely. Instead, they continued furnishing derogatory information.

This violates : FDCPA 809 ( b ) FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) FCRA 623 ( b ) These sections prohibit the reporting of disputed information unless it has been fully validated. 

8. Potential Re-Aging or Outdated Reporting The reported closing date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) creates additional concerns. Under FCRA 605 ( a ), derogatory information can not be reported beyond 7 years from the date of first delinquency.

If EXETER FIN provided an incorrect date of first delinquency or updated the account improperly, that would constitute illegal re-aging, which violates : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) CFPB Regulation V guidance Because EXETER FIN did not provide validation, it is impossible to confirm whether the dates being reported are accurate.

9. Harm Caused by the Inaccurate Reporting This inaccurate and unverified negative reporting has caused : Loan denials Higher interest rates Loss of access to prime credit Difficulty financing housing or vehicles Higher insurance premiums Negative credit score impact Emotional distress Time and cost spent disputing the account The presence of a large derogatory auto finance charge-off significantly damages a consumers credit profile even when it is outdated, unverifiable, or inaccurate.

10. Violations of Federal Law Based on the events described, EXETER FIN and XXXX have violated several provisions of federal law : FCRA Violations 602 Right to fair and accurate reporting 607 ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures for accuracy 609 ( a ) Failure to disclose source of information 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide method of verification 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Failure to delete unverifiable information 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing inaccurate information 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to mark the account as disputed 623 ( b ) Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation FDCPA Violations 807 Misleading representations 809 ( b ) Failure to validate debt but continuing to report These violations demonstrate repeated noncompliance.

11. Automation Instead of Manual Review It appears both EXETER FIN and XXXX relied heavily on : Automated dispute codes e-Oscar two-digit response codes Simplified Verified responses without reviewing documents Outdated bulk data files Lack of human involvement This is a direct violation of the reasonable reinvestigation requirement imposed by the FCRA.

12. Possible Record Retention Failure EXETER FINs inability to produce documents raises the question of whether they have even maintained : Original contracts Payment records Legal notices Charge-off statements Proof of ownership Furnishers are required under federal law to maintain clear documentation that supports the accuracy of the information they report. 

If they can not produce the records, the reporting is unlawful.

13. Summary of What Happened To summarize : EXETER FIN reported a derogatory charge-off account. 

The account showed incomplete, limited, and suspicious data. 

I disputed the account with XXXX. 

XXXX failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 

EXETER FIN provided no validation whatsoever. 

XXXX continued reporting the account without documentation. 

The account was not consistently marked as disputed. 

The reporting appears to violate multiple sections of the FCRA and FDCPA. 

The account continues to cause ongoing harm. 

The furnisher has not demonstrated legal authority to furnish the data. 

Because of this, the reporting of the EXETER FIN account is inaccurate, incomplete, unverified, and legally non-compliant. 

14. Closing Statement I am submitting this complaint to the CFPB because both the credit bureau and the furnisher have failed to follow federal law. I have repeatedly attempted to resolve this issue through proper dispute procedures, but neither party has produced the documentation required to verify the EXETER FIN account. 

Given the complete absence of evidence supporting the validity of this account, the only lawful and fair outcome is removal of the tradeline and enforcement of compliance obligations on EXETER FIN and XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation