Consumer complaint received 2025-09-04 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: OneMain Finance Corporation
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is based on new written admissions by OneMain Financial dated XX/XX/XXXX. OneMain confirms ( XXXX ) it charged off my loan on XX/XX/XXXX for {$9900.00}, ( XXXX ) it sued and obtained a judgment on XX/XX/XXXX for {$11000.00}, and ( XXXX ) it nevertheless continues to furnish the charged-off loan tradeline, asserting the judgment and charge-off are XXXX separate events. OneMain also states a judgment does not eliminate the obligation to repay created by the loan and declines deletion. These are OneMains own statements, not mine. 

OneMain further contends credit reporting agencies obtain [ judgment ] information from court recordsi.e., it disclaims any obligation to report the judgment while continuing to report the pre-judgment contract tradelineand insists the balance discrepancy ( {$9900.00} vs. {$11000.00} ) is not an error. 

Those admissions prove the violation : once judgment entered, the contract merged into the judgment under long-settled merger doctrine ( recognized nationally and in North Carolina XXXX XXXX The original loan obligation ceased to exist as a separate enforceable contract. Furnishing an ongoing charged-off loan tradeline after judgment misrepresents the legal status and character of the debt and misleads creditors about what is actually owed. 

Why OneMains position is unlawful FCRA Accuracy & Reinvestigation Duties 1681e ( b ) ( CRA accuracy ) & 1681i ( CRA reinvestigation ) : Information must be accurate and not materially misleading. A post-judgment charged-off loan tradeline is misleading because the enforceable obligation is the judgment, not the loan. The XXXX XXXX ( your circuit ) recognizes FCRA liability for data that is technically accurate but misleading to creditors ( e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). 
1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( Furnisher no-knowingly-false-reporting ) : Furnishers may not report information they know or should know is inaccurate. After admitting the judgment supplanted the contract chronology and that balances conflict, continuing to furnish a stand-alone charged-off loan is inaccurate and misleading.

1681s-2 ( b ) ( Furnisher reinvestigation ) : Upon CRA notice , furnishers must reasonably investigate, review all relevant information, and correct/delete if data can not be verified as accurate. OneMains response asserts only that it conducted a reasonable investigation, claims it need not disclose methods, and refuses deletion ; it does not reconcile the post-judgment legal status with its pre-judgment tradeline, nor the conflicting balanceswhich is not a reasonable investigation under controlling authority ( e.g., XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). 

Key admission : A judgment does not eliminate the obligation to repay therefore, the charge-off and the judgment are XXXX separate events. That framing is legally wrong and misleading to creditors. Under merger, the contracts enforceability is extinguished as an independent claim ; what remains is the judgment. Continuing to report a stand-alone charged-off contract after judgment misstates the debts legal status and creates a false impression of XXXX parallel obligations. 

FDCPA Deceptive Representation ( as applicable to collection communications ) 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) & ( 8 ) : Prohibits misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of a debt and communicating false credit information. To the extent OneMain and/or its litigation/collection agent ( e.g., The XXXX XXXX XXXX ) communicated or furnished post-judgment tradeline data implying the contract debt remains independently collectible, that is a misrepresentation. 

NC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) North Carolina XXXX XXXX or deceptive acts that tend to mislead. OneMains continued furnishing of a contract tradeline after judgment, coupled with its refusal to correct/delete despite notice, is deceptive and causes concrete credit marketplace harm ( confusing lenders with conflicting balances and a false legal status ).

UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) The Consumer Financial Protection Act prohibits unfair/deceptive acts. Furnishing legally obsolete ( post-merger ) contract data while disclaiming any duty to align reporting with the judgment reality is unfair and deceptive.

Material harm & market confusion Conflicting balances : OneMain acknowledges {$9900.00} ( charge-off ) vs. {$11000.00} ( judgment ). Lenders viewing my file can not discern the true enforceable amount or the correct legal instrument ( judgment vs. contract ), which depresses creditworthiness and impairs access to credit. 
False legal status : The tradeline suggests an active charged-off loan still exists after judgment, which is legally wrong under merger and misleading under the FCRAs accuracy standard ( XXXX ). 
Pattern : OneMain has recent regulatory history for deceptive practices, reflecting a culture of non-compliance ( noted in the CFPB record ).

OneMains own words ( evidence in the record ) Charge-off & amount : charged off on XX/XX/XXXX, in the amount of {$9900.00}. 
XXXX & amount : judgment was awarded on XX/XX/XXXX totaled {$11000.00}. 
Legal status claim : A judgment does not eliminate the obligation to repay therefore, the charge off and the judgment are XXXX separate events. 
XXXX judgment reporting : OneMain does not report judgments credit reporting agencies obtain this information from court records.

Refusal to delete : we respectfully decline your request to delete or alter your OneMain account from your credit file.

Not a duplicate complaint ( why this filing is new ) This filing is not a duplicate of my prior complaint because it arises from OneMains new, dated response ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), in which the company affirmatively adopts the position that a post-judgment charged-off loan tradeline is proper because the charge-off and judgment are separate events and because a judgment does not eliminate the obligation to repay. Those fresh admissions are the basis of this complaint and were not available at the time of my earlier submission.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation