Consumer complaint received 2025-11-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: W&A Intermediate Co., LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
What happened regarding the account reported by XXXX, identified in my records as reference number XXXX, is a long and ongoing sequence of inconsistencies, verification failures, lack of proper documentation, unanswered requests, and unresolved disputes. This situation began when I noticed a reported debt associated with XXXX  appearing on my consumer credit file, even though I had not received proper documentation, proper notification, or any form of verification establishing that I owed any debt associated with this company. 

The timeline began when I reviewed my credit report earlier this year and noticed that XXXX  was reporting a negative account. I had no prior knowledge of any active debt involving this company, nor had I received billing statements, notices, letters, or communications that would have informed me of such a debt. The appearance of this information without any prior notice raised immediate concern. Because I was unaware of any relationship with Wakefield, I decided to investigate further, which began the sequence of disputes and communication attempts that have still not been resolved. 

My first step was to dispute the XXXX entry with the consumer reporting agency. I explained that I had not received documentation, had no recollection of the debt, and needed XXXX to provide verification. I requested a copy of any contract, agreement, billing statements, communication history, proof of ownership, or other records showing how the alleged account originated. I asked for the specific amount, how the amount was calculated, any dates associated with the alleged transaction, and any documentation demonstrating that the debt was valid. I also requested that XXXX demonstrate its legal right to collect, validate, or report the information. 

Instead of receiving documentation from XXXX, I received a brief response from the credit bureau indicating that the furnisher had verified the information. No supporting documents were provided. No details were given. No explanation was offered. There was no indication that XXXX had conducted any review of original records or that any documentation existed. Because the response lacked the evidence required to substantiate the reporting, I filed a second dispute. 

In the second dispute, I again asked for documentation showing how XXXX verified the account. I specifically requested the method of verification, including whether the account was verified manually, electronically, or through a third-party process such as e-OSCAR. I requested the name of the individual or department who conducted the verification. I asked for proof of the data source, the chain of custody of the information, the purchase agreement or assignment chain if the account had been transferred, and any evidence showing that the alleged debt had been assigned legally to XXXX. Despite this detailed request, the result was the same : no documents, no proof, no explanation. 

A critical part of what happened is that XXXX has never produced a single document showing that the alleged account is legitimate. I have not received : No original contract No signed agreement No application No billing statements No breakdown of charges No notices of default No proof of ownership No evidence of assignment No copies of letters allegedly sent to me No transactional history No itemization of the claimed amount Despite the absence of any documentation, the company continues to furnish negative information, which directly affects my credit file. 

When a consumer disputes an account, the furnisher is required under federal law to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. A reasonable reinvestigation requires reviewing account-level documentation, not merely repeating prior information. In this case, the responses I have received indicate that XXXX did not conduct such an investigation. 

Adding to the issue is the fact that XXXX has never contacted me directly to validate or explain the alleged account, nor have I received any correspondence prior to the reporting appearing on my credit file. In typical debt situations, a consumer would receive written notice of the debt within five days of initial communication, which includes the right to dispute. I never received such notice. This raises concerns about whether the reporting is erroneous, whether the account is linked to the wrong consumer, or whether the company failed to provide legally required disclosures. 

Further complicating the matter is that I had no previous knowledge of this account before it appeared on my credit report. If the debt had been legitimate, I would expect to have received notices, statements, or attempts at communication. Instead, the first time I learned of the account was when it appeared on my consumer report. This suggests an issue with identity confusion, data mismatch, or internal reporting errors. 

Another important part of what happened is that I attempted to contact XXXX directly to request documentation. My attempt to clarify the situation was made in good faith. During these attempts, I was unable to obtain any concrete information from the company. I did not receive itemization, a breakdown of charges, verification letters, or proof of the origin of the debt. I also did not receive any electronic copies or mailed documents that would demonstrate the legitimacy of the reporting. 

Each time I attempted to request information, I was met with vague responses, unfulfilled promises of documentation, or no follow-up at all. Because XXXX has not produced the documentation supporting the debt, I remain unable to understand its origin, whether any amount is owed, or whether the account even belongs to me. 

During this period, I also noticed that some personal identifiers on my credit file were incorrect or inconsistent. Inaccurate personal informationsuch as variations of name, address, or employmentcan lead to mixed files or incorrect linking of accounts. The presence of inaccuracies raised concerns about whether the XXXX account was incorrectly matched to my file based on incomplete or incorrect data. Because I found multiple personal data inconsistencies, I submitted disputes to correct them. However, even after those efforts, the XXXX account remained, unresolved and unverified. 

I also noticed that the dates associated with the XXXX account did not match any timeline I recognized. Some dates appeared inconsistent or incomplete. For example, dates of alleged account activity, dates of last update, and dates of delinquency did not make sense in relation to my known records. Because dates play a major role in credit scoring models and can significantly impact the severity of an account, these inconsistencies raise concerns about accuracy. 

Another issue occurred when I applied for credit and received denials due to the presence of the XXXX account on my credit report. Because I was attempting to make financial progress and secure credit for personal reasons, the presence of inaccurate or unverified information caused immediate harm. I received notices from lenders indicating that the negative XXXX entry contributed to the denial. This demonstrated the direct impact of the ongoing reporting and added urgency to my efforts to resolve the issue. 

Because of these credit denials, I submitted another dispute. In this dispute, I thoroughly explained my concerns : lack of documentation, lack of notice, inconsistent dates, absence of proof, and the possibility of identity mismatch. Despite the detailed explanation, the credit bureau again responded with a brief statement saying that XXXX had verified the account as accurate. No documents were provided to me. There was no evidence that any records were reviewed. The response appeared to be automated or superficial. 

At this point, the situation had become harmful, time-consuming, and unresolved. The company had not provided the required documentation. The credit bureau had not provided meaningful verification. The negative reporting persisted. 

Another part of what happened is that I requested the chain of assignment for the account. If XXXX is acting as a collection agency or debt buyer, they must be able to show how the debt was transferred to them. This includes : A bill of sale A transfer agreement A chain of title An assignment of rights contract Any supporting documents connecting the original owner to XXXX I was never provided with any of these. Without documentation, there is no way to confirm that XXXX has any legal right to report or collect the alleged debt. 

Additionally, I requested information showing how the amount claimed was calculated. When an account is reported, the balance must match the original creditors records. If fees were added, they must be documented. If interest was applied, it must be lawful and itemized. None of this information has been provided. Without an itemized statement, it is impossible to verify any reported balance. 

Another issue is that XXXX continued to update the account while the dispute was ongoing. This means that even while I was seeking verification, the company was still furnishing negative information that I had not been able to verify or understand. This continued updating has repeatedly harmed my credit standing. 

During the dispute process, I also discovered that the XXXX account appeared differently across multiple consumer reporting agencies. Inconsistent reporting between bureaus is a clear sign that the information may not be accurate, properly managed, or based on reliable documentation. If an account is legitimate, accurate, and supported by documentation, it should appear consistently across all bureaus. 

Furthermore, I submitted all documentation requested by the credit bureaus to verify my identity, confirm my current and past addresses, and differentiate me from any other consumer with similar identifying information. Despite my compliance, the XXXX entry remained unchanged, further indicating that the investigation had not been conducted thoroughly. 

When I reviewed the available information, I realized that the XXXX reporting contained multiple irregularities : Missing opening date Missing date of delinquency Missing date of default Missing original creditor information Missing full account history Missing itemization Missing context showing how XXXX determined accuracy These omissions create a situation where the reporting is incomplete and potentially misleading. 

Throughout this process, the most significant issue is that XXXX has never demonstrated that the alleged account is mine or that it is accurate, despite multiple disputes and requests for verification. 

In summary, what happened with XXXX under reference XXXX is the following : The account appeared without prior notice. 

No documentation has ever been provided. 

Disputes did not result in evidence. 

Verification responses were vague and unsubstantiated. 

Personal identifier inconsistencies suggest potential misattribution. 

Dates are inconsistent. 

The account has caused financial harm. 

No proof of ownership or assignment exists. 

No billing statements or account history were provided. 

The company has not met the standard for a reasonable reinvestigation. 

This is what happened and why I am seeking resolution through the CFPB.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief