Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX against Equifax handling of an alleged investigation into an account/tradeline with XXXX XXXX. Attached to that complaint was documents showing, among other things an e-mail response dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX stating a failure to pay on the account would not harm my credit score. That statement was dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. That implies any negaive/derogatatory payment history would not result in derogatory payment annotations in my credit files from that date onward. Also included was a statement from XXXX own collections agent citing consumer law violations and XXXX discrimination ( unlawful, unfair and abusive practices ) I alleged XXXX engaged in to generate false/misleading/inaccurate information that was then placed in my credit files. I provided both copies of the complaints I submitted to DoJ regarding the matter, which outlined the law violations and discrimination in full detail. Finally, I provided copies of my credit report clearly showing XXXX 's response to billing error notices I filed and that its subsequent efforts to correct the issue ( s ) was through a process of changing billing due dates for billing cycles over the past two ( 2 ) years. I demonstrated XXXX 's changing of billing due-dates resulted in a re-aging of alleged debt that would be marked " pays as agreed '' for N months and then proceed to be marked +30 days past-due beginning at some random month thereafter. I demonstrated this process took place on at least two ( 2 ) different occasions and that the process had resulted in maximal impact beyond when any alleged debt considered " seriously delinquent '' would be charged-off and required to be reported as such under Federal law. I followed CFPB XXXX with CFPB XXXX, which demonstrated the logical impossibility of the information as reported in the XXXX account/tradeline. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received a notification through myfico.com showing Equifax changed the status of their " investigation '' from " investigation in progress '' to " now resolved by data furnisher consumer disagrees. '' It now shows no dispute in-process and the account having been updated with the same inaccurate and unverifiable information. It is impossible that Equifax conducted a reasonable investigation that is compliant with the requirements under the FCRA and entirely likely they sought simply to update the status of the account through e-OSCAR. A cursory review of even p. 1 of the documents submitted shows XXXX denying they are the reason the derogatory information is being reported by the CRAs as evidenced in the documentation. In fact XXXX blames the CRAs stating, " We are unable to change accurate reporting and we have no control over how the credit reporting agencies display the information we provide them for the account '' ( see p. 1 of attached docs ). So, having made that clear, it should then be no surprise this complaint is against Equifax because they have been negligent in verifying the accuracy of the information supplied to the by XXXX. If XXXX claims the information is indeterminate, tacitly placing the blame on Equifax, and Equifax continues to use the information supplied by XXXX, which XXXX says they have no control over as reported, the supplied information is patently indeterminate. Per the current status, the account is allegedly 180 days past due and attained that status in XX/XX/XXXX. But, the account was allegedly charged off in XX/XX/XXXX ( see p. 2 of attached docs ). It is then patently inaccurate for the status of 180 days past-due to have been as recent as XX/XX/XXXX. It implies the 180 days status occurred 545 days after XXXX response ( XXXX ) to the CFPB claim the account was CO ( XX/XX/XXXX -- see p. 6 of docs ). Moreover, the account would need to be reported as " charged-off. '' The number of days delinquent can be reported for a charged off account, but it is false and misleading to indicate the status was just attained, and harmful to mark the maximum delinquency status for the account over one and one half years AFTER that status should be reported. Either Equifax needs to remove the derogatory information because of the indeterminate nature of the information and contradictory statements from XXXX, or Equifax needs to be prepared to be sued by me in Federal court for failure to comply with their responsibilities under the FCRA. And, if Equifax believes their negligence is not harming me at present, I have been denied housing specifically because of the way this account is being reported. My patience with Equifax 's negligent XXXX is exhausted.