Consumer complaint received 2025-05-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. 

Despite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. 

Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. 

I reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. 

This pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. 

It is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. 

The credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. 

This entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. 

Fix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. 

Contradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. 

Specifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. 

In XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. 

The account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. 

More importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. 
In XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. 
Despite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. 

This not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. 

Delinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. 

Rebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. 
That logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. 
Contract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. 
XXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. 

This XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. 
Despite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. 
That is not delinquency. That is re-aging. 

Supporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. 

XXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. 
Absolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. 

It is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. 

XXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. 
Then why is each bureau showing? 
A different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. 

Both scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. 

Rebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Below is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. 

XXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. 

XXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). 

XXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. 

XXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. 

XXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. 

Bottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. 

Proof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. 
Evidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. 
Conclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. 
Conclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. 

And lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. 

You have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. 

Under the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. 

You had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. 

XXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). 
Continuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. 
This pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. 

All supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. 

Additional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. 
Dismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. 
Misleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. 
Impact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. 
Call for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. 

Preemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. 

XXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. 

XXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. 

XXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. 

If XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. 

Final Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. 
2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. 
3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. 
4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. 

At this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. 

Collective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. 

This finger-pointing is unacceptable. 
Under FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. 
The credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. 

By allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. 

This is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. 

What This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. 
I have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. 
I have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. 
I have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. 
I have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. 
I have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. 
I have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. 
Ive experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. 

All of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. 

This is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. 

It is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. 
XXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. 
UDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. 

I am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. 

The record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation