Consumer complaint received 2025-12-25 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Aargon Agency, Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this rebuttal as part of a new CFPB complaint, because prior CFPB Case Number XXXX was closed without resolution, despite the companys continued failure to comply with federal law. The underlying issue remains unresolved, and the company continues to report an account that I do not own, did not authorize, and which I have formally reported as identity theft. 

This rebuttal is submitted to clearly document that the companys prior response was legally insufficient, factually incorrect, and failed to satisfy its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( XXXX ). The company improperly shifted the burden of proof onto me, disregarded my FTC Identity Theft Report, and continued reporting the account without producing legally sufficient evidence of ownership. 

I. STATUS OF PRIOR CFPB CASE AND REASON FOR NEW FILING The prior CFPB case ( XXXX ) was closed without the disputed account being removed and without the company producing documentation proving that I opened or authorized the account. XXXX of that case did not resolve the dispute, did not correct the inaccurate reporting, and did not stop the ongoing harm to my credit profile. 

Because the company continues to report the same account despite my identity theft filing, I am now creating a new CFPB case to ensure proper regulatory review. This new filing is necessary because the companys previous response relied on legally insufficient arguments and failed to comply with mandatory identity-theft blocking provisions under federal law. 

XXXX. CLEAR STATEMENT OF FACT : I DO NOT OWN THIS ACCOUNT I unequivocally state the following facts : I do not own this account I did not apply for this account I did not authorize this account I did not sign any contract or service agreement I did not benefit from any services or credit associated with this account There is no contractual relationship between me and the company. At no time did I knowingly request, accept, or use the account being reported. 

XXXX. IDENTITY THEFT REPORT FILED LEGAL EFFECT Because the account is not mine, I filed : An FTC Identity Theft Report An Identity Theft Affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury These documents constitute a valid identity theft report under FCRA XXXX ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ). 

Once such a report is filed, federal law requires that : Consumer reporting agencies block the disputed information within XXXX business days, and XXXX cease reporting unless they can prove the information is not the result of identity theft. 

The company has not met this burden. 

IV. COMPANY RESPONSE IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE The companys prior response ( issued during CFPB Case XXXX ) fails for several reasons : A. Address Association Is Not Proof of Liability The company improperly relied on address association to justify reporting. Merely residing at or being associated with an address does not establish contractual liability. Federal law does not permit a company to infer ownership of an account based on address matching alone. 

An address is not : A signed contract Proof of authorization Proof of identity verification Evidence of consumer consent This reasoning is legally insufficient. 

B. Identity Theft Does Not Require the Consumer to Prove a Negative The company improperly suggested that my identity theft claim lacked merit because I did not provide additional proof beyond my FTC affidavit. This position is contrary to law. 

Under FCRA XXXX, a consumer is not required to prove how identity theft occurred or disprove the debt. Once an FTC Identity Theft Report is submitted, the burden shifts to the furnisher and credit bureau to either : Block/delete the information, or Produce competent evidence proving the account is not the result of identity theft The company produced no such evidence. 

XXXX FDCPA XXXX Is Not FCRA Accuracy The company conflated FDCPA XXXX standards with FCRA accuracy requirements. These are distinct legal obligations. 

Even if minimal FDCPA verification were satisfied for collection purposes, credit reporting is governed by the FCRA, which imposes stricter duties regarding accuracy, reinvestigation, and identity theft. 

Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( b ), a furnisher XXXX not report information unless it is accurate and can be substantiated after dispute. 

V. SPECIFIC FCRA VIOLATIONS XXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX Failure to Block Identity Theft Information The company continued reporting the account after receiving notice of identity theft, without demonstrating that the account was not fraudulent. This violates the mandatory blocking requirement. 

XXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) Failure to XXXX a Reasonable Reinvestigation A reasonable reinvestigation requires meaningful review, not a restatement of prior conclusions. The company failed to : XXXX original contracts Evaluate identity theft documentation Explain verification methodology XXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The company did not disclose : What documents were reviewed Who verified the account How authorization was established XXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) Maximum Possible Accuracy Reporting an account that does not belong to me, after identity theft notice, fails the maximum possible accuracy standard. 

VI. FAILURE TO PRODUCE COMPETENT EVIDENCE The company has not produced : A signed agreement bearing my signature Proof of identity verification at account opening Proof that I requested service Proof that I benefitted from the account Absent this evidence, continued reporting is unlawful. 

XXXX. CONTINUED HARM Because the account remains reported, I continue to suffer : XXXX XXXX damage Increased borrowing costs Denied credit opportunities Emotional distress XXXX lost repeatedly disputing the same issue Closure of the prior CFPB case did not stop this harm. 

XXXX. REQUIRED RESOLUTION UNDER FEDERAL LAW To resolve this matter lawfully, the company and credit reporting agencies must : Delete the account in full Block the account under FCRA XXXX Remove all associated late payments Cease all reporting and updating Provide written confirmation of deletion Prevent reinsertion under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Marking the account as disputed is not sufficient. 

XXXX. REQUEST FOR CFPB ACTION IN NEW CASE In this new CFPB case, I respectfully request that the CFPB : Require compliance with FCRA XXXX Require deletion absent proof of authorization Review the companys reinvestigation procedures Prevent continued unlawful reporting The closure of the prior case does not absolve the company of ongoing violations. 

X. FINAL CONSUMER POSITION To restate clearly : I do not own this account I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report The company failed to prove ownership The prior CFPB case was closed without resolution I am now creating a new CFPB case Continued reporting violates federal law This matter remains unresolved and requires immediate corrective action. 

XXXX. CONCLUSION The companys prior response was legally deficient and failed to comply with mandatory identity theft protections. Continued reporting of this account after notice of identity theft is unlawful. XXXX of the prior CFPB case did not correct the inaccuracies or stop the harm. 

I request CFPB intervention in this new case to enforce compliance, require deletion, and restore the accuracy of my credit file.

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