Consumer complaint received 2025-05-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and Hyundai Capital America ( HCA ) for inaccurate credit reporting and failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed information on my credit reports, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Specifically, my vehicle loan account ( Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) is inconsistently reported as being held by XXXX XXXX XXXX on my XXXX  credit report and by Hyundai Capital America on my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports, despite having the same account number. This inconsistency has caused confusion, potential harm to my creditworthiness, and constitutes an inaccuracy under the FCRA. Furthermore, XXXXHCAs response to my initial dispute failed to address this issue, violating their obligations as a furnisher under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).

Description of the Issue On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I opened an automobile installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX, as confirmed by my XXXX  credit report. The account details include a balance of {$23000.00}, a monthly payment of {$620.00}, and a status updated as of XX/XX/XXXX. However, my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports list the same account ( with the identical account number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) as being held by Hyundai Capital America, with a notation of " Potentially Negative. '' This discrepancy in creditor identification across major credit bureaus creates an inaccurate representation of my credit obligations, potentially affecting my credit score and ability to secure future financing.

Upon discovering this issue, I submitted a dispute to XXXXHCA , requesting correction of the inconsistent reporting. Their response, received on or about [ insert date of response, if known ], stated that they conducted a " thorough review '' and found the reporting to be accurate, without addressing the specific inconsistency I raised. They further requested that I provide " proof of the specific inaccuracies '' to reopen the investigation. This response fails to meet the FCRAs requirement for a reasonable investigation and does not resolve the clear discrepancy in creditor identification.

Violations of Consumer Law XXXXHCAs actions violate the following provisions of the FCRA : 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : This section requires credit reporting agencies, upon receiving a dispute, to conduct a reasonable investigation to verify the accuracy of disputed information. By extension, furnishers like XXXXHCA , under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), must investigate disputes received through credit bureaus and correct inaccuracies. The inconsistent reporting of my account as XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX  and Hyundai Capital America on XXXX  and XXXX  constitutes an inaccuracy, as it misrepresents the creditor identity for the same account.


2. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) : After receiving notice of a dispute, furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation, review all relevant information, and report the results to the credit bureaus. XXXXHCAs response, which dismissed my dispute without addressing the discrepancy and shifted the burden to me to provide further proof, fails to meet the standard of a reasonable investigation as required by law.

Supporting Case Law The following case law supports my claim : Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 ( 9th Cir. 2009 ) : The court held that furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed credit information under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). A cursory review that fails to address the specific nature of the dispute, as in XXXXHCAs response, does not satisfy this requirement.

Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ) : This case established that furnishers are liable for failing to correct inaccurate credit information after a dispute, particularly when the inaccuracy could harm the consumers creditworthiness. The inconsistent creditor identification in my case creates confusion and potential harm, warranting correction.

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