Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

In the matter at hand, the Consumer ( 'Complainant ' ) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in relation to student loan accounts purportedly owed to the University of Michigan XXXX Complainant is a natural person and a person and consumer as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) at 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( c ). Complainant has at least XXXX XXXX as defined under 42 U.S.C. 12102 ( the Americans with XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) for all times material hereto. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant checked the information XXXX maintains regarding his creditworthiness and found that XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts ending XXXX and XXXX were inaccurately reporting past-due amounts and account statuses that conflicted with the on-timepayment histories displayed for each account. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant checked the information XXXX maintains regarding his creditworthiness and found that XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts beginning XXXX were inaccurately reporting past-due amounts and account statuses that conflicted with the on-time payment histories and/or amounts purported due for the respective month. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant checked the information XXXX maintains regarding his creditworthiness and found that XXXX ( XXXX ) accounts beginning XXXX were inaccurately reporting past-due amounts and account statuses that conflicted with the payment histories displayed for each account ( see Credit Report XXXX ). These inaccurate and misleading credit reports have exacerbated Complainants disability-related conditions, increasing the emotional and physical toll of the situation. This has further contributed to financial instability, heightened stress, an overall deterioration in Complainants well-being, and has thwarted efforts to obtain stable housing. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Complainant disputed the reporting with XXXX regarding the inaccurate information for accounts ending XXXX and XXXX in files pertaining to Complainant. Specifically, these accounts reported past-due amounts equivalent to XXXX ( XXXX ) missed payments ( amounts of {$690.00}, {$150.00}, and {$290.00} ) despite the payment history reflecting on-time payments for the months of XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Importantly, the purported Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX was not only inaccurate but also impossible. As of XX/XX/XXXX, less than XXXX months had passed since the DoFD, meaning it could not be accurate to state that payments are past due. This contradiction raised serious questions about the validity of the reporting by the loan servicer and XXXX and highlighted the misleading nature of the information being disseminated regarding Complainant. XXXX communicated Complainant 's dispute notice to the loan servicer. At first, neither the loan servicer nor XXXX conducted a reasonable investigation. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX returned results of their investigation which continued to show the same facially false information within the files XXXX maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant for the accounts. 
On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Complainant filed a similar dispute with XXXX regarding facially inaccurate information for accounts beginning with XXXX in files pertaining to Complainant. Specifically, Complainant notified XXXX that these accounts reported past-due amounts equivalent to XXXX ( XXXX ) missed payments ( amounts of {$460.00}, {$100.00}, and {$98.00} ), despite the payment history showing on-time payments for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, the balance history for each account listed the month of XX/XX/XXXX twice, each entry indicating a scheduled monthly payment. No balance history was reported for months following XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX communicated the dispute notice and accompanying documentation to the loan servicer. At first neither XXXX nor the loan servicer conducted a reasonable investigation. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX returned results that continued to show facially false information for the accounts/tradelines. For example a DoFD is reported for the accounts as XX/XX/XXXX, which predates the reporting of information for the accounts. Moreover, the payment history was changed for the accounts to indicate a past-due payment history of 30 days for both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, whereas it only reported a past-due payment history for XX/XX/XXXX prior to dispute. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Complainant filed a similar dispute with XXXX. In total, The University 's loan servicer, and presumably the University itself, have been notified not less than XXXX ( XXXX ) times that there were facial inaccuracies and other errors in the data it was furnishing regarding complainant under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. It should be noted that Complainant was a student in a graduate program during the reporting period for XX/XX/XXXX. These inaccurate and misleading credit reports have exacerbated Complainants disability-related conditions, increasing the emotional and physical toll of the situation. This has further contributed to financial instability, heightened stress, an overall deterioration in Complainants well-being, and has thwarted efforts to obtain stable housing. Given the furnishers repeated failure to verify or correct facially inaccurate information despite multiple notifications, the complainant requests that the loan servicer permanently cease reporting the disputed accounts under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). The persistent inaccuracies constitute materially misleading information ( see XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ). Only deletion with a block on re-insertion can fulfill the FCRAs requirement for maximum possible accuracy, protecting the complainants credit and well-being from further harm.