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: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
The purpose of this statement is to describe in detail what occurred regarding the reporting, verification, and handling of the account listed on my credit report as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which currently appears as a derogatory Collection/Chargeoff account. I am submitting this complaint because the information being furnished by XXXX XXXXXXXX  appears to be inaccurate, unverified, unsupported by documentation, and maintained in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

Despite multiple attempts to obtain validation and procedural clarification regarding the origins, legality, accuracy, and verification of this account, XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus have failed to provide the required documentation. As a result, the derogatory reporting associated with this account has caused significant financial harm, credit score damage, and ongoing obstacles to obtaining fair access to credit. What follows is a comprehensive overview of what happened, the timeline of events, the problems identified, the bureaus failures to comply with federal law, and the distress and damages caused by the continued reporting of this unverified account. 

1. Discovery of the XXXX XXXX Account on My Credit Report When reviewing my credit report, I discovered that XXXX XXXX was reporting a tradeline associated with the account identifier XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The account is listed as : Collection/Chargeoff Closed on XX/XX/year> Past-due balance {$6900.00} Derogatory status across all three major credit bureaus Additionally, the account shows an extensive history of delinquency reporting, including : 30 days late : 7 times 60 days late : 6 times 90 days late : 1 time This reporting significantly impacted my credit score and created the appearance of severe financial distresswhether or not the information being reported is accurate, verified, or legally supported.

Upon seeing this, I began investigating the account to determine whether the reporting was accurate and whether XXXX XXXX had the legal right to furnish this information.

2. Immediate Problems Identified With the XXXX XXXX Tradeline As I reviewed the information, I identified several issues : A. No Original Contract or Application Has Been Provided At no point has XXXX XXXX provided : A signed retail installment contract A credit application bearing my signature A purchase agreement Loan origination documents Payment history statements Without such documents, the account can not legally be verified. 

B. No Proof XXXX XXXX Still Owns or Legally Controls the Account Debt obligations are often sold to third-party collectors or charged off internally. However, XXXX XXXX  has produced no ownership documentation, such as : Assignment records Transfer agreements Chain-of-title documentation Forward flow agreements Without these, there is no proof XXXX XXXX has legal standing to report the debt. 

C. The Dates and Data Reported Are Inconsistent Across Bureaus The XXXX XXXX reporting is inconsistent between : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Status codes differ, dates differ, and payment histories differ. Inconsistent data between bureaus indicates a lack of maximum possible accuracy, violating FCRA 607 ( b ).

D. The Account May Be Re-Aged The Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) is unclear, and the reporting pattern suggests possible re-aging, which is illegal under FCRA 605 ( c ). Re-aging artificially extends the reporting period beyond the lawful seven-year window.

3. My Attempts to Resolve the Issue and Request Validation Upon discovering the XXXX  XXXX tradeline, I immediately exercised my rights under the FCRA by sending written disputes to the three credit bureaus. 

In each dispute, I specifically requested : The method of verification used to verify the XXXX XXXX  account The original signed contract or agreement The date and data source used to confirm accuracy Whether verification was done manually or through the automated e-OSCAR system Documentation proving data transfer, chain of custody, and validation source The law that authorizes continued reporting without providing documentation The credit bureaus are required by federal law to : Reinvestigate within 30 days ( FCRA 611 ) Provide the method of verification upon request ( FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) ) Delete unverifiable information ( FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ) Ensure maximum possible accuracy ( FCRA 607 ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX, as the furnisher, is required to : Conduct its own investigation upon receiving notice ( FCRA 623 ( b ) ) Provide accurate, complete reporting ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ) Mark accounts as disputed by consumer ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) However, neither party complied with these obligations.

4. Responses Received and Failure to Provide Validation The credit bureaus responded with generic statements saying the account has been verified but did not provide : Any contract Any application Any payment history Any assignment record Any supporting documentation Any description of the investigative procedure Any method of verification explanation There was no evidence that any manual review was conducted. All signs indicate that the disputes were processed using the e-OSCAR system, in which furnishers respond using numeric codes rather than supplying actual documentation. 

Under CFPB guidance, the use of e-OSCAR without reviewing documentation does not satisfy the requirement to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 

Thus, both XXXX XXXX and the bureaus appear to have violated multiple FCRA sections. 

5. Violations of Federal Law Based on Their Actions A. Violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) Failure to Reinvestigate The bureau must conduct a reasonable investigation. Instead : No documents were reviewed Automated systems were used No evidence was provided Disputes were closed without verification B. Violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to Provide MOV The bureaus must disclose the method of verification, yet none did.

C. Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Accurate Records The inaccurate, inconsistent, and unverified reporting demonstrates a lack of reasonable accuracy procedures.

D. Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to Mark as Disputed XXXX XXXX failed to report the account as disputed. 

E. Violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ) Continued Collection Without Validation Reporting a debt without validation constitutes continued collection activity. 

6. Harm and Distress Caused by the XXXX XXXX Reporting The continued reporting of this derogatory accountdespite its unverified naturehas caused : Lowered credit scores Denied credit applications Increased interest rates Emotional distress Loss of financial opportunities Time and expenses spent on disputes Difficulty obtaining auto financing, housing, or personal loans This account alone has significantly damaged my creditworthiness, even though XXXX XXXX  has not proven that the account is : Accurate Owned by them Enforceable Legally reportable Supported by documentation The harm would not have occurred if the bureaus had complied with the FCRA and removed unverifiable information. 

7. Additional Indicators of Improper Reporting and Systemic Negligence A. No Consumer Contact From XXXX XXXX At no point did XXXX XXXX attempt to verify the debt directly with me. 

B. No Documentation Provided by Any Party Despite multiple disputes, no documents were produced.

C. Lack of Chain-of-Title Evidence XXXXXXXX XXXX has not proven ownership of the account at the time of reporting.

D. Inconsistent Reporting Between Bureaus This strongly suggests : Reporting errors Systematic negligence Data integrity failures Lack of reasonable procedures E. Use of XXXX Instead of Manual Review Automated verification violates the Bureaus guidance when documentation is requested. 

8. Why the XXXX XXXX Account Should Not Appear on My Report Based on federal requirements, a derogatory account can not remain on a consumer report unless it is fully verified with original documentation, legal ownership proof, and accurate data. 

Since XXXX XXXX  : Did not provide documentation Did not validate ownership Did not conduct an investigation Did not supply MOV Did not mark the account as disputed Did not correct errors Did not respond with supporting evidence The account is legally unverifiable, and therefore must be removed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ).

9. Summary of What Happened To summarize : A derogatory account from XXXX XXXX appeared on my credit report. 

The account is reported as a charge-off with a {$6900.00} past due balance. 

The reporting includes inconsistent dates and statuses across bureaus. 

I disputed the account with all three credit bureaus. 

I requested full validation, the method of verification, and documentation. 

XXXX XXXX did not produce the required documents. 

The credit bureaus closed disputes using automated e-OSCAR codes. 

No proof of the alleged debt was provided. 

The account remains on my report without verification. 

This violates multiple FCRA and FDCPA provisions. 

This has caused financial harm, stress, and damages. 

The account remains unverified and therefore unfit for reporting. 

10. Why I Am Submitting This Complaint to the CFPB I am submitting this CFPB complaint because : My disputes were not investigated properly. 

My rights under federal law were not upheld. 

XXXX XXXX  failed to validate the debt. 

The credit bureaus failed to provide the method of verification. 

The account continues to harm me financially. 

I have exhausted the dispute process. 

Only regulatory intervention can correct these violations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation