Consumer complaint received 2025-12-08 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
CFPB COMPLAINT FORMAL FEDERAL CONSUMER PROTECTION VIOLATION NOTICE Product : Credit Reporting Company : Credit Acceptance Corporation Credit Bureau : XXXX XXXX Issue Type : Inaccurate Credit Reporting / Failure to Properly Investigate / Failure to Flag Dispute / XXXX XXXX Non-Compliance SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT I am filing this complaint against Credit Acceptance Corporation ( CAC ) and XXXX XXXX for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and systemic XXXX XXXX reporting non-compliance regarding my auto loan account ending in XXXX. 

I first disputed this account directly with the creditor as an invalid debt. I then formally disputed with XXXX. Despite this, XXXX claims the account was verified as accurate and updated on XX/XX/year>, even though the account contains multiple factual impossibilities and illegal reporting conditions that were never corrected. 

XXXX own investigation results confirm that this account is being published with : XXXX XXXX  monthly payment on a 66-month installment contract Repossession status listed as verified {$12000.00} past-due balance No XXXX XXXX dispute indicator Incorrect address association Missing legally required verification elements No proof of contract enforceability No proof of lawful deficiency XXXX  verification is therefore objectively fraudulent and legally impossible. 



DOCUMENTED REPORTING IMPOSSIBILITIES & VIOLATIONS 1. IMPOSSIBLE INSTALLMENT TERMS XXXX XXXX FATAL ERROR XXXX currently reports : Terms : {$0.00} per month Payment Schedule : Monthly Loan Term : 66 months This configuration is mathematically and legally impossible for a valid installment contract. A loan can not exist with no payment obligation yet generate delinquency, default, repossession, and a {$12000.00} deficiency. 

This alone invalidates the entire tradeline under : FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate XXXX XXXX Format Logical Consistency Rules 2. FAILURE TO REPORT ACCOUNT AS IN DISPUTE FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) VIOLATION I disputed this account : Directly with the furnisher ( Credit Acceptance ) Formally with TransUnion Through multiple CFPB complaints Yet no dispute notation ( Consumer Disputes This Account ) appears anywhere on the tradeline. 

This omission is a standalone federal violation that falsely misleads all creditors reviewing my report into believing I accept liability for a debt that is formally contested. 



3. FALSE VERIFICATION WITHOUT EVIDENCE FCRA 611 ( a ) & 623 ( b ) XXXX states the account was verified as accurate, however : No contract verification was supplied No itemized deficiency accounting was supplied No auction sale proceeds documentation was supplied No deficiency calculation proof was supplied No repossession authorization proof was supplied No post-sale accounting documentation was supplied A data furnisher can not legally verify a debt they can not document. This makes the verification procedurally fraudulent. 



4. INCORRECT ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOUNT The address tied to this tradeline does not match the address XXXX  maintains in my consumer file. This is direct evidence of : Data contamination Identity mismatch Mixed-file risk Possible third-party attribution error This alone required immediate deletion, not verification. 



5. DEFICIENCY REPORTING WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS The account reports : Past Due : {$12000.00} Payment Received : {$0.00} Status : Repossession Yet : No lawful deficiency accounting was proven No commercially reasonable auction proof was supplied No proceeds were credited in verification No debt validation was provided This violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) FCRA 623 ( b ) CREDIT BUREAU VIOLATIONS XXXX XXXX XXXX violated : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to delete unverifiable information FCRA 607 ( b ) Reporting information without maximum possible accuracy FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to mark dispute FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Any reinsertion requires certification and notice ( never provided ) Their investigation consisted of blind reliance on an unverified furnisher response despite the presence of mathematically impossible account terms. 



ONGOING HARM As a result of this false verification : My credit score remains severely suppressed I continue suffering active reputational credit damage Lenders are misled into believing this debt is valid I am financially restrained by a provably defective tradeline The harm compounds monthly due to continued balance updates FORMAL RELIEF REQUESTED I formally request that the CFPB require : FROM CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION 1. Immediate deletion of the entire installment loan from XXXX, and any other credit bureau where this account is furnished. 
2. Permanent cessation of any furnishing on this account whatsoever ; 3. Written certification that no further reporting will occur.

4. Full accounting of any alleged deficiency and sale proceeds. 

FROM XXXX XXXXXXXX 1. Immediate deletion of the tradeline under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) 2. Written disclosure of all verification materials received 3. Certification that no reinsertion will occur without legal compliance 4. Confirmation that my dispute rights were violated and corrected LEGAL POSITION This account is legally defective under federal law for the following independent reasons : Impossible loan structure Missing dispute flag False verification Lack of contract proof Lack of deficiency proof Address mismatch XXXX XXXX reporting violations Procedural reinvestigation fraud Any one of these defects alone mandates deletion. Their coexistence establishes willful non-compliance. 



CONCLUSION This is not a billing disagreement. This is a systemic data integrity failure and federal consumer protection violation. XXXX fabricated a verification that could not lawfully exist. XXXX XXXX furnished data that can not possibly be accurate under any lawful accounting standard. 

I request immediate regulatory enforcement, and Escalation to supervisor review *

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