Product: Credit reporting

There are XXXX copies of my credit bureaus showing different deletion dates for the same account. I claim that the trade line payment history has been cut off purposely for the direct intentions of re-aging the deadline as to when the account should be removed. The creditor shows that the drop dead removal deadline is XXXX XXXX on Experian, but the trade lines show the first 30-day late payment XXXX XXXX. The fact remains that XXXX cut off two years of my payment history. I was making payments that were at least 30 days late as far back as XXXX. The 7-year rule of the Fair Credit Reporting applies and the financial institution has no other recourse but to remove the trade lime immediately and permanently. The timeline to file a lawsuit to collect has expired based upon the rules on the state of New York. The following case research rules in my favor on the illegal usage of re-aging debt timelines : ITEMS HAVE BEEN RE-AGED EXTENDING NEGATIVE HISTORY BEYOND 7-YEAR TIMELINE SEVEN/TEN YEAR RULE UNDER FCRA GUIDELINES - REMOVAL OF TRADE LINES Experian, XXXX and XXXX XXXX Are Aware Of Timeline Extensions by Creditors Case in point, if a credit card payment was late 84 months ago, and since that time period the credit card was paid in full, settled for less than full balance, or charged off by a federally insured bank as mandated under Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Rule 5000, applicability of applying a charge off standard to debt service, then the creditor must report the true payment history on the credit trade line for a minimum of 84-months. The Federal Trade Commission has levied fines and penalties against creditors for using a re-aging process totally in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act guidelines. Re-aging of debts have been used by the Internal Revenue Service by re-issuing federal tax liens with a new fining number when the 10-year rule timeline was running out. It is used by creditors as a means of stalling or delaying one 's credit rating, simply by cutting off several years of previous payment histories. This process is highly illegal and abusive to the integrity of the credit reporting system that was designed to be fair and accurate for the commercial banking industry to extend to those that qualify to pay a specific debt back to the issuing financial institution. It was not designed for manipulation by creditors to extend the worthiness of a debt or the fair timeline to report a debt payment history. I request as part of the credit bureau reinvestigation a summary of my payment history, not copies of any statements, from the listed creditor to prove the true and accurate timeline as to when a credit item should be removed. A SPECIFIED DATE OF WHEN AN ACCOUNT IS TO BE REMOVED IS MANDATORY!!! Any attempt from a creditor or the Internal Revenue Service to extend a debt timeline will, upon failure to remove an extended item, be reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against the credit reporting agency not complying with a full re-investigative process. Three new decisions - XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Cir. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( ordered depublished XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) - have changed, clarified, or confused ( depending on your point of view ) the legal landscape in California as to the legal obligations of so-called " furnishers '' who furnish credit-related information concerning consumers to credit reporting agencies. These cases address the obligations of furnisher 's under federal and state law to supply accurate information, as well as a furnisher 's obligation to " reinvestigate '' a consumer 's dispute.