Consumer complaint received 2025-06-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I hope this finds you well. I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered complaints by Experian that were filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB Complaint XXXX. 

Despite multiple formal complaints filed with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved. Experian has claimed that my dispute could not be processed due to a lack of information ; however, I have provided all personally identifying information required under federal law, including my full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, current mailing address, phone number, and email address. I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information. I believe this constitutes perjury and other violations of United States Codeboth criminal and civil.

Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), consumer reporting agencies are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when furnished with sufficient identifying information and the nature of the dispute. I have met all legal thresholds under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically under 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( i ), which mandates reinvestigation of disputed items when proper notice is given. Experian has not investigated this matter, consistent with federal law. Rather, once again, I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information to avoid having to do their jobs or upset a banking partner -- especially since Experian now offers debit card services. 

This inaccurate and unresolved derogatory mark on my credit report is not only unwarranted given the timely payments made in XX/XX/year>, but it has also caused substantial harm beyond financial inconvenience. As a current law student aXXXX XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, I have been forced to disclose this matter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX due to its potential professional implications. Further, under the character and fitness requirements of the State Bar of Georgia, I may be required to disclose this credit dispute during the bar application process. This unjustified derogatory credit report entry could negatively affect my ability to sit for and pass the bar exam, directly impairing my future in the legal profession. I respectfully request that the CFPB take this matter seriously and request the CFPB order that the XX/XX/year> 30-day late payment notation be removed without further delay.

In accordance with my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), I am formally disputing the inaccurate reporting of a 30-day late payment for XX/XX/year> on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card account XXXX I made two timely payments during that billing cycle {$130.00} on XX/XX/year> ( satisfying more than the required minimum ), and an additional {$160.00} on XX/XX/year>. Both payments were posted well within the billing period, and at no point was my account delinquent by 30 days or more. 

The credit reporting error has resulted in a significant and unjustified drop in my credit score. I am respectfully requesting the immediate correction of this error and removal of the inaccurate late payment notation from my credit history with all relevant credit bureaus. Supporting documentation is enclosed, along with the original complaint filed that list all required information under federal law that Experian is making false statements about.

The information relevant to this disputeincluding the underlying facts, payment confirmations, and timeline of eventsis fully contained in the supplemental attachments provided. Additionally, a short narrative has been included in the updated portion of this submission to ensure clarity and compliance. This has been done specifically to preempt and refute any further false or misleading claims by Experian that there is " not enough information '' to process the dispute. Such claims are directly contrary to federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 [ i ] ) and implementing regulations under 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), which requires only basic identifying information and the nature of the dispute to trigger a reinvestigation. All such required informationmy full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, mailing address, phone number, email address, and a description of the errorhas been provided in full.

All information required under federal law to process and investigate this dispute has been fully provided, including my personal identifying details, a detailed description of the issue, and supporting documentation.

Therefore, no further communication from Experian or any party should assert that there is not enough information to proceed. This claim has already been falsely made once and is without merit. In addition to the written narrative, I have included ample supplemental materials, such as payment confirmation screenshots and relevant bank records, which clearly demonstrate the error. The volume and clarity of the evidence submitted leave no legitimate basis to delay or deny a proper reinvestigation.

It appears that Experians reliance on third-party vendors to handle disputes is part of the problem, as their vendors must be operating with inaccurate or incomplete information. However, as consumers, we are never told who these vendors are or what methods they use to investigate disputesleaving the process entirely opaque and unaccountable. In my case, Experian only initiated any investigation after I filed a separate complaint highlighting their failure to act professionally or at all, contrary to federal law and federal regulations. Their claim that there was not enough information was not only false but seemed to be a deliberate attempt to avoid initiating a reinvestigation. Once that complaint forced them to act, Experian quickly ruled against meclearly favoring a result that would shield them from admitting that they had failed to follow federal law and had neglected their legal obligations to consumers. To acknowledge the error would have been to admit that they did not perform their duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that they allowed inaccurate information to harm consumers like myself. It appeared as if it was rigged, because it felt like it was just a game of mitigating legal liability for Experian.

P.S. : I expressly reserve any and all rights and liberties afforded to me under statutory law, constitutional provisions, judicial precedent, and all other applicable legal frameworks, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, associated provisions within the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations, the Rules & Regulations of the State of Georgia, and the applicable ordinances and regulatory authority of XXXX XXXX and the City of Atlanta. I further reserve all rights under law and equity to pursue appropriate civil remedies and, if warranted, initiate or recommend criminal proceedings or referrals to applicable local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies.

P.P.S. : I also formally request full transparency regarding this dispute, including the identity of the investigator ( s ) assigned to this matter and the name ( s ) of any third-party vendor ( s ) used by Experian in conducting their review. If any vendor or agent acted upon false or incomplete information or failed to comply with federal standards of reinvestigation, then theyand any individuals acting beyond their authorized scopemay be held personally and professionally liable in addition to their respective corporate entities. 

P.P.P.S : It is also important to note that, according to XXXX XXXX own policies and standard industry practices, negative credit reporting does not occur unless a payment is thirty ( 30 ) days past due. In this case, the minimum payment was made on XX/XX/year>, and a second payment was made just five days later on XXXX XXXX well within the billing cycle and well before the 30-day threshold. Even if the XX/XX/XXXX payment had posted a day late, it would not have triggered a 30-day delinquency under either industry norms or the Cardholder Agreement governing my account. Therefore, XXXX XXXX reporting of a 30-day late payment is factually and contractually unjustified and must be corrected. 

NARRATIVE : In midXXXX, I checked my credit score and was shocked to see a steep decline. I looked and noticed my payment history section was inaccurately dinged. It claimed I was late 30 days or more on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX payment. That is incorrect, and I am requesting that it be removed from my credit report. 

On XX/XX/year>, I paid more than the minimum payment obligation required ( {$130.00} ). Furthermore, on XX/XX/year>, I made an additional payment to XXXX XXXX toward my balance ( {$160.00} ). This was in addition to satisfying my minimum payment obligation ( {$25.00} a month ) that I paid in full and fulfilled on XX/XX/year> by a payment of {$130.00}. 

The Experian Credit Report inaccurately reports that XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was a past due account by 30 days. That is incorrect because payments were made on XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>. Both payments were above the minimum payment required and received/posted in early XX/XX/year>, making it impossible to be 30 days past due. 

I am requesting the inaccurate information regarding payment history be removed from my credit report history.

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