Product: Student loan

XXXX XXXX XXXX from Wells Fargo Enterprise Complaints Management Office responded to CFPB complaint XXXX writing in-part " As a fair and responsible lender, we are required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to report the true history of each account ... Since we have confirmed the information reported for this account is accurate, we are unable to honor the request to delete or update the reporting to reflect a more favorable account history. The FCRA allows us to continue reporting the account for seven years from the first delinquency that led to charge off, which for this loan is XX/XX/XXXX ( for loan ending in XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( for loan ending in XXXX ). Once this time has passed, the account information can be removed from your credit profile as described in the FCRA. '' However a portion of the FCRA, 15 USC 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) states : " A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. '' Now, I have disputed the issues outlined in XXXX et. al. with XXXX. XXXX conducted an investigation and reviewed the documentation I supplied, and after review found that the information Wells Fargo was furnishing for XXXX and XXXX into my credit files was invalid/unverifiable. To quote their response to CFPB complaint XXXX : " After careful review, we have determined the information submitted in the portal included a dispute of information appearing on your credit report. XXXX has processed your request and forwarded a copy of the Investigation Results through US mail. You should expect to receive those results in approximately 7 business days. In response to your request, the following actions were taken on your credit file : You disputed the following accounts andlor public records on your credit file. Below includes the results of that investigation. WELLS FARGO EFSUPDATED WELLS FARGO EFSDELETED '' I am providing a copy of the full XXXX response to XXXX, which makes clear XXXX removed the derogatory history for one ( 1 ) of the accounts and deleted the accounXXXX  ( s ). Two-hundred ( XXXX ) complaints with the CFPB have been filed in just the last two ( 2 ) years regarding the issues Wells Fargo acknowledges they " decline '' to fix. At this point Wells Fargo knows, or should know, the data they are furnishing for XXXX and XXXX is incohate. I've written such, and at least one ( 1 ) CRA has arrived at the same conclusion. In fact, any reasonable person ( not lender, but person, ie firm ) would arrive at the same conclusion. The bottom line is the information Wells Fargo is furnishing to the CRAs is generated based upon a misapplication of payments, and a failure to generate statements in accordance with TILA/Regulation Z. Wells Fargo knows this. XXXX XXXX actually tried to provide an incohate explanation for it : " Well you didn't let us know payment was misapplied. '' If Wells Fargo stops generating periodic statements, claiming an account was in a deferment and/or forbearance as reasoning, how would a consumer know about misapplied payments. How would a consumer know Wells Fargo was continuing to bill them during that same period? None of this is new. This is the cultural MO of Wells Fargo. To quote the CFPB in it's findings regarding WF student loan practices, " Wells Fargo failed to provide the level of student loan servicing that borrowers are entitled to under the law. Because of the breakdowns throughout Wells Fargos servicing process, thousands of student loan borrowers encountered problems with their loan or received misinformation about their payment options. The CFPB found that the company violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Acts prohibitions against unfair and deceptive acts and practices, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. '' Unfair and deceptive acts and practices seems to be WF way of doing business. It's unfair, it's deceptive, it's abusive, and in summary UNLAWFUL ( see 12 U.S. Code 5536 ). All I've asked WF to do is fix the errors -- nothing more. Instead they've tried to insist there are no errors. Yet, the documentation they continue to supply with each response shows otherwise. XXXX XXXX can't even keep a consistent explanation from response to response. So no, it's not once time ( 7 years ) has past the information can be removed. That would require the information to be accurate and lawfully generated. A CO due to misapplication of a payment is not lawful ( see 12 U.S. Code 5536 ). Non-compliance with statement generation under Regulation ZTILA that would allow a consumer to catch a billing error is unlawful ( see 12 CFR 1026.2 ( a ) ( 4 ) and 12 U.S. Code 5536 ). Refusing to fix an error and claim " we find no errors. '' when their on documentation shows otherwise, and when at least one ( 1 ) CRA has concluded errors exist, is a blatant violation. Being notified on at least two-hundred ( 200 ) different occasions that such errors exist, repeatedly denying what is known, or should be known, is an error, and refusing to fix those errors is a violation ( see 15 U.S. Code 1693f and 15 USC 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ). Continuously furnishing information that is known, or should be known, is erroneous is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). I am asking for a fair resolution that is verbatim what XXXX revived and on which they acted after concluding the data WF was furnishing to it was inchoate. There's no excuse under the FCRA for WF not to take it upon themselves to do the same thing. In fact, it compels Wells Fargo to do what I've asked because at this point, despite whatever claims WF comes up with, WF knows, and or should know, the data furnished for XXXX and XXXX is horridly inchoate and unlawful.