Consumer complaint received 2020-08-29 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I have suffered actual damages in the form of emotional and mental pain and anguish, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and nervousness, from the actions or lack of actions, of XXXX, Equifax, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Hereafter The Credit Reporting Agencies ) and will continue to suffer the same for an indefinite time in the future, all to my great detriment and loss. 

As a result of The Credit Reporting Agencies conduct, I have suffered actual damages in the form of injury to credit rating and reputation, and a decreased credit score, and I will continue to suffer the same for an indefinite time in the future, all to my great detriment and loss.

At all times hereto, The Credit Reporting Agencies is a person associate employed by the consumer reporting agencies, and consumer reporting agency as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( f ).

At all times pertinent hereto, I am a consumer as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ). 
At all times pertinent hereto, the below-mentioned credit were consumer reports as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ).

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 15 U.S.C. 1681o, Credit Reporting Agency is liable to me as a consumer for engaging in the following conduct : 1 ) Reporting aged debts, as new in 2020 on my credit file.

2 ) outgoing communication requesting debt validation, of a reported  error on my credit file, without California residents consent to solicit any creditor for my information or proof of what is being reported. The Credit agencies do not have my consent to solicit information from anyone on me.

3 ) In all past reports submitted to the Credit Reporting Agencies, via consumer protection port the credit reporting agencies sent a request to the creditor reporting wrong information, asking for the creditor to respond. This was done without my consent. I did not give consent nor imply consent to send out a request to a third party to request my personal information or the derogatory account being falsely reported. 


Firstly, I am a California resident, and live in a state protected by its own constitution and privacy laws. I hereby revoke any and all permissions of Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX, together with XXXX XXXX, XXXX to sell my derogatory information, or supply my derogatory information to third party banks. Moreover, let it be noted hereto [ a ] ny new debt, reported on my credit in 2020 or credit pull, I have not agreed to, nor applied for. I have no new debt. The resent 2020 addition of an alleged new debt to my credit file is unlawful, false and misleading. I do not give Equifax, XXXX, or XXXX or any associated entities my consent, to communicate with the creditor falsely reporting the alleged new debt in 2020. 
For XXXX to communicate with any third party regarding the validity of the reported debt will be a violation of California privacy, laws. A cursory review of my credit file will show the debt has been on my credit file for longer than 7 years, and thus even under the circumstance of the debt being sold or transferred to another LLC, the LLC holding the old debt can't report a debt as new.

This complaint asserts, Equifax, XXXX, or XXXX is in perceived potential violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( hereafter the FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 and reporting misleading and  false derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to myself, and credit history to third parties. Due to Equifax, XXXX, or XXXX ( hereafter the Credit Reporting Agencies ) faulty  procedures, the credit worthiness is impacted.

A very good parallel case of Credit Reporting Agencies faulty procedures has emerged in the new 2020 class action lawsuit filed ref ; Sass et al. v. Great Lakes. In the current class action, It is alleged, XXXX, Equifax and XXXX has illegally damaged the credit, of Millions of student loan Borrowers by reporting inaccurate information on consumers credit, passed onto the Credit Reporting Agencies by creditors. The complaint alleges 8 million federal student loan lenders mishandled the implementation COVID-19 relief by illegally providing inaccurate information about millions of its customers to Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX, each CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY of which in turn HAS illegally reported this information. Damaging the credit of millions of people. Further, each of these companies, in their capacities as the joint owners of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, which was also named in the complaint, treated this inaccurate information as derogatory and sold borrowers improperly damaged credit scores to third parties. 

I hereby file formal notice, to the Credit Reporting Agencies, for the purpose of recorded evidence, too. And the use of this in a potential future lawsuit, and I elect by free will to allow the Consumer Protection Bure to make this document public, and allow the plaintiff in the current lawsuit Sass et al. v. Great Lakes the right to use this complaint as evidence to support the exsiting 2020 class action lawsuit alleging " Faulty Practices '' of the Credit reporting agencies. The Credit Reporting Agencies have been notified, by me as an individual, the reporting of new debt on my credit report in 2020 is not true, and inaccurate. Keeping it on my credit past XX/XX/2020 is inappropriate. 

Moreover, allowing for a new entity, to report an old debt as new is alleged to be a lack of due diligence. This illuminates simmilar faulty practices the Credit Reporting Agencies are currently in a class action lawsuit on. In the lawsuit, it is alleged the student lenders passed the derogatory information onto the credit reporting agencies ( COVID-19 laws did not allow for ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies are alleged to have just gone ahead and reported it, on public record, of millions of people, without validating the lenders ' accuracy. A key point of the currnet lawsuit, iscredit reporting agencies are alleged to have not conducted due dalliance to validate if the lenders were being compliant with the law and new COVID-19 laws in particular, reporting unpaid student loans during COVID-19. 

The fair credit reporting act, does not allow for the reporting of a debt more than a statute f limitations on the credit report. In 2020 there is a new debt on my credit. A simple cursory review of my credit report will reveal is report for more than 7 years. The Credit agencies has failed to pick up the debt has been sold to another company, and there is no evidence to show it was lawfully sold to the new entity wrongfully reporting the debt as new. It is clear that this is the same debt, that has been reported for years. The current 2020 lawsuit this, has very close parallel circumstances to my credit file and the Credit Reporting Agencies Faulty practices. 

The Credit reporting agencies protocol when receiving this letter is to send out a letter to the creditor falsely reporting my information, to verify the information. However, I do not give The Credit Reporting Agencies my permission or consent to communicate to a third party or request information on me. To do so is a violation of the California privacy laws. 

When I advise The Credit Reporting Agencies the information being reported is inaccurate, I consider it a mental torment, and harassment that instead of removing the offending and misleading data, the Credit reporting Agencies send a request to the creditor alleged to be reporting the wrong information, requesting the creditor to validate the information on my credit file. Who gave the credit reporting agencies consent to request information on me from a 3rd party? I do not. It seems again, faulty practices and processes. 

I hereby demand the credit reporting agencies remove immediately, the derogatory information on my credit report. 

1 ) XXXX XXXX, and any other entities the debt appear in, including but not limeted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the new 2020 entity created displaying the old XXXX XXXX debt. 

2 ) XXXX XXXX 3 ) XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation