Consumer complaint received 2025-12-18 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: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Formal Consumer Complaint and Request for Reinvestigation, Identity-Theft Blocking, and Method of Verification Barclays Bank Delaware Account XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX To Whom It May Concern, My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX My address is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York XXXX. My email is XXXX and my telephone number is XXXX. I am submitting this correspondence as a unified complaint and formal notice for use with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, XXXX XXXX, and Barclays Bank Delaware regarding ongoing identity theft, inaccurate credit reporting, and deficiencies in the handling of my disputes concerning Barclays Bank Delaware account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  as reported by XXXX. 
I have been actively disputing this account since XXXX. During this time, I have submitted FTC Identity Theft Reports, multiple police reports across jurisdictions, and written disputes explaining that this account is the result of identity theft. Despite this extensive documentation and the length of time the dispute has been pending, XXXX continues to report the account and has stated that the information was verified as accurate. Based on the content of the reporting and the manner in which the dispute has been addressed, I am requesting immediate corrective action, a documented reinvestigation, written disclosure of the method of verification, and appropriate application of identity-theft protections under federal law. 
This complaint is grounded in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ( reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ), 1681i ( a ) ( reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information ), and 1681c-2 ( blocking of information resulting from identity theft when proper documentation is provided ). It also raises concerns regarding the continued reporting of information that appears materially misleading after repeated disputes and requests for clarification. Courts have recognized that credit reporting agencies must conduct more than superficial or automated confirmations when a consumer disputes information with specificity and supporting documentation, and that reporting may be actionable when it creates a materially misleading impression even if some data points are technically correct. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ). 
As currently reported by XXXX, the Barclays tradeline reflects the following : Date Opened XX/XX/XXXX ; Balance {$2600.00} ; Pay Status Charged Off ; Responsibility Individual Account ; Date Updated XX/XX/XXXX ; Terms Paid Monthly ; Payment Received XX/XX/XXXX ( {$0.00} ) ; Date Closed XX/XX/XXXX ; Loan Type Flexible Spending ; Last Payment Made XX/XX/XXXX ; Maximum Delinquency of 120 days in XX/XX/XXXX and again in XX/XX/XXXX ; Account Type Revolving/Credit Card ; High Balance {$2600.00} ; Original Charge-off {$1900.00} ; Credit Limit {$2000.00} XXXX XXXX Due {$2600.00} ; Remarks indicating dispute investigation complete and unpaid balance charged off ; and an estimated removal date of XX/XX/XXXX with monthly C/O statuses continuing into XXXX. 
Within this reporting, there are multiple internal inconsistencies that reasonably warrant a heightened, document-based reinvestigation rather than a conclusory verified outcome. These include, without limitation, the reported balance exceeding the reported credit limit ; the original charge-off amount not reconciling with the reported balance and past-due amount ; the reporting of the full balance as past due after the account is described as charged off and closed ; the presence of Terms : Paid Monthly on an account simultaneously reported as closed and charged off ; the reporting of a payment received in the amount of {$0.00} paired with a last payment made date ; the reporting of maximum delinquency of 120 days in multiple non-consecutive months ; and the continued monthly reporting of charge-off statuses through XXXX on an account reportedly closed in XX/XX/XXXX. Taken together, these data points create a reporting profile that is at minimum confusing and potentially misleading to users of the report and therefore requires careful review and reconciliation. 
The tradeline is also described as an unpaid balance charged off, yet I have never received a Form 1099-C and have not been provided any documentation showing how this account has been treated for tax or accounting purposes. While I understand that charge-off and cancellation of debt are not identical in all circumstances, the combination of a charge-off designation, ongoing balance and past-due reporting, and the absence of any explanation or documentation supporting that treatment further underscores the need for a written clarification supported by underlying records. 
This dispute must also be considered in the context of identity theft and widespread exposure of my personal information through major data breaches. I have been impacted by multiple breaches, including XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and XXXXXXXX. The accounts reported opening date of XX/XX/XXXX falls within the broader time period during which compromised personal data has been widely exploited, and XXXX  itself has publicly acknowledged data-security incidents affecting consumer information. This context heightens the importance of a careful and transparent reinvestigation when identity theft has been repeatedly asserted and documented. 
If Barclays contends that this account is properly attributable to me notwithstanding my identity-theft reports and notwithstanding the documented data breaches affecting XXXX, its third-party data ecosystem, and its telecommunications affiliate relationships, including XXXX widely reported XX/XX/XXXX breach, I respectfully request that Barclays provide a clear, written explanation of the basis for that position. This should include any signed application or authenticated electronic assent, complete account-opening records, evidence of consumer authorization, and documentation sufficient to reconcile the reported credit limit, balance, original charge-off amount, past-due amount, payment fields, and delinquency history. I further request a written explanation of how the accounts charge-off status is being reported while the balance remains shown as fully owed, and clarification regarding any related tax or accounting treatment. 
Accordingly, I respectfully request the following actions and written responses : a renewed reasonable reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) that includes review of underlying account-level documentation rather than automated confirmation ; application of identity-theft blocking procedures consistent with 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 if my submitted documentation meets statutory requirements ; a written disclosure of the complete method of verification used for XXXX prior verified as accurate determination, including the name, address, and telephone number of the furnisher contacted, the specific information relied upon, and whether documentary records were reviewed ; written confirmation of the true Date of First Delinquency used for obsolescence calculations and confirmation that no impermissible re-aging has occurred, consistent with 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) ; and correction or deletion of the tradeline if the information can not be substantiated or reconciled to reflect maximum possible accuracy. 
I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed with the seriousness appropriate for an identity-theft dispute that has been pending since XXXX with repeated submissions of FTC and law-enforcement documentation. I am seeking a prompt, accurate, and well-documented resolution and appreciate receiving all responses in writing so that a clear record may be maintained for regulators. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  New York XXXX XXXX XXXX

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