Attempts to collect debt not owed: Debt collection

I am submitting this complaint because * * Educational Credit Management Corporation ( ECMC ) * * continues to report a derogatory collection account on my consumer credit reports that I believe is inaccurate, incomplete, and has not been properly verified as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). I have exercised my rights under the FCRA by disputing the accuracy of this account and requesting that the consumer reporting agencies conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. Rather than receiving documentation establishing the accuracy of the account, I have received only generalized responses indicating that the account was " verified '' or continues to be reported as accurate. These responses do not explain what information was reviewed, what records were relied upon, or how ECMC substantiated the information being reported. A statement that an account has been verified, without supporting evidence, does not satisfy the requirements of federal law. The ECMC account is currently being reported as a * * collection account with a derogatory status * *, and its continued presence on my credit reports has caused substantial harm to my financial standing. A collection account significantly affects creditworthiness and may negatively influence decisions regarding loans, credit cards, housing, employment, and insurance. Because of the serious impact this reporting has on my financial life, I requested that ECMC and the consumer reporting agencies conduct a thorough investigation using original source documentation rather than relying on automated electronic verification systems. Under * * 15 U.S.C. 1681i * *, when a consumer disputes information appearing on a credit report, the consumer reporting agency is required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is accurate. Likewise, under * * 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) * *, consumer reporting agencies must maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. These statutory obligations require more than transmitting an electronic dispute to the furnisher and accepting an automated response. They require an investigation based upon competent documentary evidence that establishes the accuracy and completeness of the information being reported. To date, I have not received any documentation demonstrating that ECMC possesses sufficient evidence to support the continued reporting of this collection account. I requested copies of the original promissory note or other legally binding agreement, documentation identifying me as the obligor, complete account records, payment history, account statements, records establishing the balance claimed to be owed, documentation showing the date of first delinquency, and any documents supporting the transfer or assignment of the account to ECMC if applicable. I also requested copies of the records relied upon during the investigation and an explanation of the method of verification used. Despite these requests, no competent documentary evidence has been provided. If ECMC maintains that the account is accurate, then it should have no difficulty producing complete business records establishing its accuracy. These records should include the original signed agreement or promissory note, complete servicing history, payment ledger, records supporting the balance reported, documentation establishing the date of default, records demonstrating that the account was lawfully transferred or assigned to ECMC if it was acquired from another entity, and documentation demonstrating ECMC 's authority to report and collect the alleged debt. Without this documentation, I have no way to determine whether the information appearing on my credit reports is accurate, complete, or legally reportable. I am also concerned that the investigation conducted by the consumer reporting agencies may have relied exclusively upon automated verification systems instead of an independent review of the underlying records. Numerous courts have recognized that a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires more than accepting the furnisher 's computerized response when a consumer specifically disputes the accuracy of an account. A meaningful reinvestigation requires examination of the original source documents and consideration of the evidence presented by the consumer. If ECMC merely confirmed the account through an automated process without reviewing the original records, then the investigation was not reasonable within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In addition, I requested disclosure of the method of verification used during the investigation. Specifically, I requested identification of the individual or department that conducted the investigation, the documents that were reviewed, the records relied upon, and the procedures used to determine that the account was accurately reported. Instead of receiving this information, I received