Consumer complaint received 2026-05-26 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: American Credit Bureau, Inc.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
b'This is a new complaint citing conduct that occurred after my prior complaint against American Credit Bureau Inc. ("ACB"), CFPB Complaint ID XXXX, filed XXXX XXXX XXXX. Specifically, ACB has now (a) represented a materially false date of receipt of my validation request to the CFPB, and (b) continued furnishing unvalidated information to consumer reporting agencies through the date of this filing. These are distinct violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that arose after and through ACB\'s response to the prior complaint.\nACB MISREPRESENTED THE RECEIPT DATE TO THE CFPB\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, ACB submitted a response to Complaint XXXX stating that ACB "received the consumer\'s dispute on XXXX." That representation is false. XXXX Certified Mail tracking #XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the certified mail item containing my validation letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX shows the item was "Delivered, Left with Individual" at ACB\'s XXXX XXXX FL XXXX address at XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX, seven days before the date ACB now claims. "Left with Individual" means XXXX handed the item to a person at ACB, not that it was left in a mailbox or held at a post office. ACB had physical possession on XXXX XXXX.\nThe seven-day discrepancy is not a mailroom-processing artifact. It is the precise difference between the customary XXXX FDCPA response window having already expired (under the XXXXconfirmed receipt date of XXXX XXXX, the window expired XXXX XXXX, XXXX days before ACB\'s response was filed) or appearing to still be open (under ACB\'s claimed receipt date of XXXX XXXX, the window expires XXXX XXXX, XXXX day after ACB\'s self-imposed XXXX XXXX internal deadline). The date claim moves ACB from clear non-compliance to apparent compliance for the purposes of the CFPB record. A false statement of fact made to a federal consumer-protection regulator in connection with an FDCPA dispute is itself prohibited under FDCPA 1692e(8) (communicating false information) and 1692e(10) (use of false or deceptive means in connection with the collection of a debt).\nACB HAS CONTINUED FURNISHING UNVALIDATED INFORMATION THROUGH THE DATE OF THIS FILING\nFrom XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX-confirmed receipt of the validation request) through the date of this filing XXXX days ACB has produced no validation of the alleged $XXXX debt. During the same period, ACB has continued to furnish the alleged debt to XXXX and certified the debt as accurate in response to a parallel dispute. XXXX issued investigation results on XXXX XXXX XXXX (Confirmation #XXXX) stating the disputed information was "reporting accurately," based on ACB\'s certification through the ACDV process a certification ACB made while having produced no validation. ACB\'s continued furnishing without validation, combined with affirmative certification of accuracy to a consumer reporting agency, violates 1692g(b), 1692e(2)(A), and 1692e(8) on an ongoing basis distinct from the violations cited in the prior complaint.\nACB\'S ANNOUNCED INTENT TO PRODUCE DAY-XXXX "VALIDATION" DOES NOT CURE THE VIOLATION\nACB\'s XXXX XXXX response states that if the original creditor (Equine Integrated Veterinary Services) supplies validation by XXXX XXXX XXXX, ACB will forward those documents to the consumer. ACB has held this placement from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The proposition that validation documents that did not exist for over XXXX XXXX will materialize on the XXXX day of ACB\'s claimed dispute window is not credible. More likely, ACB will produce account-level data (statements, balance ledgers, or procedure code lists) and characterize that as validation but account-level data is not validation under 1692g, which requires verification of the debt as owed by the consumer to the named creditor. Whatever ACB produces on or near XXXX XXXX will have been available to ACB at any point during the prior XXXX months. The day-XXXX production framing is performative compliance, not substantive compliance.\nORIGINAL-CREDITOR MISREPRESENTATION REMAINS UNCORRECTED ON CREDIT REPORTING RECORD\nACB\'s XXXX XXXX response to the prior complaint refers to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as "our client, the original creditor," acknowledging that ACB is not the original creditor. The XXXX tradeline disclosed in the XXXX XXXX XXXX, investigation results nevertheless lists ACB itself as the "Original Creditor." The misrepresentation in the credit reporting record has not been corrected by ACB through any communication to XXXX with any furnisher, and it persists as of the date of this filing. This is an ongoing violation of 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), and 1692e(10) separate from the validation issue.'

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