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

The late payment and CO annotations furnished by XXXX to Transunion are baed upon prohibited acts and practices to include deceptive acts and practices, unfair acts and practices, and abusive acts and practices. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I contacted XXXX. The representative I spoke with informed me that as long as another payment was made BEFORE my next statement due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX my account would not be subject to CO. The account was charged-off at the end of XX/XX/XXXX, before my next due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. This is the epitome of deceptive as I was given information that would lead any reasonable individual to believe they had time beyond XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to authorize a payment and prevent a CO from occuring. In their XXXX XXXX statement XXXX alleges the payment that was returned with error code XXXX -- unable to locate was processed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However in response to CFPB complaint XXXX XXXX acknowledges the authorization for the XXXX payment on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : " We note on XX/XX/XXXX, a payment was made by a third party who identified themselves as your mother in the amount of {$190.00}. This payment was returned as Unable to Locate on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a letter was sent to you advising your account was closed due to lack of payment. '' These contradictory statements indicate a systemic failure in tracking ACH authorizations and returns. In a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX phone conversation with XXXX XXXX in Discover Executive Office of Customer Advocacy, XXXX stated the information hed been provided to investigate the returned payment of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollars was simply the last XXXX ( XXXX ) of the account number, the routing number, and the XXXX error code and admitted it was this information that he conducted his investigation. As my mothers last name, also my last name, can be prone to variations in spelling, I asked if hed been able to verify the last name and first name as entered by XXXX during the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX phone payment process. He stated those pieces of information were not provided to him. This becomes evident again in the discrepency between the alleged balance that would be charged-off on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Independent of the date my mother provided the correct account number and routing number and authorized the debiting of her account in the amount of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) dollars to prevent the account from being charged-off before the next statement due-date. Neither My mother nor I have control over XXXX 's processes, nor do we control XXXX 's systems and its interconnects with other financial services institutions. That is, we do not control how and with what fidelity XXXX submits ACH requests to other financial services institutions. While my mother was provided with a confrmation number, it is notable that I received no notificication confirming the payment. Thus, the account closure constitutes an unfair practice prohibited under 12 U.S.C. 5531 because the situation was not reasonably avoidable by me or my mother. We both reaosnably believed that the payment would be promptly presented to the financial services institution and that the confirmation number provided by XXXX would serve as proof of payment processing. If the situation is not reasonably avoidable by a consumer, then it is false and misleading under 15 U.S. Code 1681e to report information for this account that is derived from or that exists as consequence of the situation that is/was not reasonably avoidable by a consumer. In this context, the information reported need not even be " false '' but may equally be " correct '' information that gives a materially misleading impression ( see : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX ). The facts and documents are attached.