Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

I filed CFPB complaint XXXX with XXXX regarding inaccurate reporting of an account/tradeline in my credit files as reported by XXXX and Experian. I additionally filed CFPB complaint XXXX with Experian regarding the same inaccuracies in the XXXX account/tradeline. Both were filed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX responded to XXXX on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  stating in part, " Please understand that XXXX is responsible for providing this information to the credit reporting agencies ; however, the credit reporting agencies have their own policy for reporting the information that is displayed, '' implyig the inaccuracies with the credit reporting was with the CRAs, XXXX and Experian. Experian responded on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  stating, " Per your request to conduct a reinvestigation, we contacted the data furnisher ( s ) for disputed items on your Experian credit report and asked them to verify the accuracy of the information with which you disagree. They responded and verified that the remaining disputed information was accurate as reported. '' Neither XXXX nor Experian seems to be taking responsibility for the errors in the account/tradeline. Whether the " reasonable reader '' or some other standard is used, a cursory inspection of the information reported is inchoate. For example, XXXX alleges the account was charged-off sometime in XXXX. Yet, the date of first delinquency, which determines the date at which a charge-off occurs, and relative to which the derogatory charge-off will report under law, shows as XX/XX/XXXX. If this date were accurate, the it implies the charge-off occurred nearly two ( 2 ) years AFTER the date of the first delinquency and means the charge-off took place well outside the statutory time-frame of not later than one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days after the date of first delinquency. On its face this is an error. The charge-off status, and the charge-off indicators with payment history and status code, can only persist in a credit file relative to an accurate DoFD. In absence of an accurate DoFD the charge-off indicators and status are inchoate and must be removed. Further, the Charge-off status reported for the months XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  through XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  constitute errors in data furnished by XXXX under the US Sixth Circuit interpretation XXXX 15 U.S.C. 1681e because the data for those months is incohate ( false and/or misleading and/or inaccurate and/or incomplete ) : 1. The periodic due date established under TILA/Regulation Z is on or around the fourth ( XXXX ) day of each calendar month ; 2. The closing date of a billing cycle established under TILA/Regulation Z is on or around the ninth ( XXXX ) day of each calendar month ; 4. Recent Credit file snapshot with Experian alleges a maximum delinquency of 120 days in XXXX of XXXX  5. Recent Credit file snapshot with Experian alleges a delinquency of sixty ( 60 ) days for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  6. Recent Credit file snapshot with Experian alleges no data reported for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  7. Recent Credit file snapshot with Experian alleges a delinquency of ninety ( 90 ) days for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  8. Recent Credit file snapshot with Experian alleges a CO first occurred XX/XX/XXXXXXXX 9. Recent Credit file snapshot with Experian alleges no data reported for XXXX  XXXX  10. If a maximum delinquency occurred in XX/XX/XXXX, then any charge-off would have taken place in that month or the subsequent month XXXX XXXX 11. If a charge-off occurred after a delinquency of ninety ( 90 ) days, then an alleged charge-off would have occurred in the month AFTER XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and began reporting as such in XX/XX/XXXX instead of XXXX XXXX 12. If there is no sufficient data to report the delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX, then there is insufficient data to report a delinquency of ninety ( 90 ) days for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  XXXX and/or Experian have tried to make the inchoate data " fit, '' as there are prior perturbations on this same theme, evident in the account/tradeline changes that took place in response to a dispute with a BEFORE and AFTER snapshot on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  as provided by Experian. 

Each time the account has been disputed since XX/XX/XXXX, the date of first delinquency slides and is pegged to the month in which the dispute was filed. Thus derogatory information such as an alleged charge-off pushes out the seven ( 7 ) time frame the information is scheduled to say on-file. Thus, XXXX is engaging in acts and practices that are unfair under 12 U.S.C. 5531 and unlawful under 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 because XXXX knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information it continues to supply to the CRAs is inchoate ( inaccurate ) and can not be reconciled. Moreover, it is unlawful for Experian to persist the inchoate information in my credit file because the information is false/misleading/inaccurate under 15 U.S.C. 1681e. 

If XXXX claims it isnt responsible, and Experian claims XXXX has verified he accuracy of the information, WHO THE XXXX  IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INACCURACIES IN THIS ACCCOUNT/TRADELINE?