Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX against Equifax for its mishandling of an investigation regarding their reporting of an account/tradeline with XXXX. I explained the account was wrongfully charged-off due to accounting irregularities and payment ( s ) returned with a strange R03 error code. I explained XXXX was unable to determine the cause for the R03 and the individual at XXXX was given insufficient information to rule out the possibility that XXXX failed to present the payment. I provided documentation showing XXXX was miraculously able to present a payment with identical information that caused the R03 error code within close proximity of their intent to charge-off the account, before the due-date on the statement that would have prevented the charge-off itself. For example, in one piece of documentation XXXX alleges it charged-off the account on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Another piece of documentation from XXXX alleges they charged-off the account on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, hours after accepting a payment that would have prevented the charge-off from occurring because the statement due-date was XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Equifax responded to CFPB complaint XXXX claiming they provided non-monetary relief : " Equifax reviewed the complaint, relevant documents, and completed an investigation where applicable. '' Complying with 15 U.S. Code 1681i, which outlines what Equifax must do in response to a consumer 's dispute, does not constitute non-monetary relief -- it's XXXX. Moreover, the statement implies Equifax actually reviewed the documentation and and resolved the error ( s ) within the account/tradeline pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1681e. They did not. I live within the US Sixth ( 6th ) circuit. The 6th Circuit has previously held that the standard of maximum possible accuracy not only includes information that is false/inaccurate, but additionally includes information that is " technically accurate, '' but provides a misleading impression that causes harm or is likely to cause harm to a consumer ( see : Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc. , 954 F.3d 938, 943 ( 6th Cir. 2020 ) ). It is clear Equifax knows or should know the data furnished by XXXX is erroneous under 15 U.S. Code 1681e because Equifax padded the data to make the furnished data " make sense. '' Finally, the response from Equifax itself is patently ridiculous : " A summary of the results are listed below : Trade : XXXX XXXX  WE SHOW THAT YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISPUTED THE SAME ITEM AND EQUIFAX IS EITHER CURRENTLY PROCESSING THAT DISPUTE OR HAS RECENTLY PROVIDED YOU WITH THE RESULTS. We hope this resolves your concerns and, if applicable, a copy of the dispute results has been mailed to you. '' Resolving a consumer dispute by persisting an error does not constitute a resolution of an error in a credit file. And, a consumer disputing the information " again '' implies the error has not been fixed. Closing out a CFPB complaint with that sort of nonsense is an abusive and does nothing in the furtherance of ensuring maximum possible accuracy. 

Any reasonable individual would look at the documentation and conclude the data furnished by XXXX to Equifax is inchoate. Any reasonable individual would conclude the incoherent nature of the data furnished would warrant " Not reported '' statuses for the affected months leading up to alleged charge-off. While 15 USC 1681i requires Equifax to conduct reasonable investigations, 15 USC 1681e requires Equifax to ensure the information within the credit file is persisted with maximum possible accuracy. Equifax 's solution was to PAD the data that would not be filled in correctly and to advance late payment history from XX/XX/XXXX through wrongful charge-off. So, for example, since there exists contradictory documentation regarding the date of charge-off, Equifax took the later of the two ( 2 ) dates. To make it seem as though the data was complete, Equifax then : advanced the delinquency status for every month beginning XX/XX/XXXX, and then added an extra month of derogatory payment history to make the XX/XX/XXXX charge-off date now simply an account that became one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days past-due. This was done to make it appear the CO occurred at the maximum number of days delinquent before charge-off. The problem is, XXXX does not charge-off accounts at one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days. None of the information furnished by XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX and present will be " complete. '' Equifax has demonstrated that. If the information is incomplete, and it has caused harm, or is likely to cause harm to a consumer, under 15 U.S. Code 1681e the information must be removed and replaced with " Not Reported '' to ensure " maximum possible accuracy, '' because the accuracy of the information furnished is patently inchoate and misleading. Padding data to make it " seem '' coherent is a tacit acknowledgment that the data is known not to be coherent. Thus, Equifax has at the very least violated the FCRA. The bottom line is Equifax needs to remove any and all derogatory payment history, account statuses, account narratives, payment ratings, and charge-off annotations for the months beginning XX/XX/XXXX and ending at present. They then need to block XXXX  from inserting any new data for this account under a new and/or duplicate account/tradeline. To do otherwise harms a consumer and the persistence of this information in my credit file has been referenced by a tenant screening company to deny me tenancy.