Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

[ 1 ] A charge-off for an XXXX account is alleged to have occurred on XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  ( see response from XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  ). The account/tradeline as reported by Equifax shows a CO first occurring in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX That is false/misleading/inaccurate, since XXXX alleges the CO occurred on XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX 

[ 2 ] On or around XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX provided a response with a table of payment history that shows an alleged payment was thirty ( 30 ) days past-due for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  The following month that same table shows the payment was now one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days past-due. An acceleration of ninety ( 90 ) days in an alleged late payment history is not possible within a span of a single billing cycle, ie. a nominal thirty ( 30 ) day period. 

[ 3 ] Equifax shows a date of Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) occurring in XX/XX/XXXX, which means the account would report until XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  date is not possible based upon Equifax 's own data, which shows the account status was " paid on time, '' for the month of XX/XX/XXXX. Using the table supplied by XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and proceeding backwards in time ( down the table ), the DoFD would have to be between XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX But, the CO is alleged to have occurred on XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  which means the DoFD is invalid and the scheduled date to drop off record is invalid. Based upon the information provided above, and the corroboration of such within the attached docs, Equifax knows or should know the account is not being reported with maximum possible accuracy because the source of the data ( XXXX ) has errors for the information it is furnishing to Equifax : the information is inchoate. A reasonable individual only has to examine the table in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX response to see the errors. Moreover, Equifax knows or should know the errors will not change simply by updating the account/tradeline with XXXX because XXXX is the source of the errors. Yet, Equifax has updated the account/tradeline on at least three ( 3 ) occasions since XX/XX/XXXX, with Equifax online dispute process opting to simply resolve my consumer disputes by updating and/or verifying the inchoate account information it persists with that of the furnisher, ie verifying the information between XXXX and Equifax " matches '' by utilizing the automated faculties of eOSCAR. That process does NOT constitute a reasonable ( re ) investigation under the FCRA, especially when visual inspection of the documents supplied show agreement with the account tradeline as reported by Equifax, which implies XXXX IS the source of the false/misleading/inaccurate information. Equifax is required to report accounts/tradelines with maximum possible accuracy. On its face the payment history and status codes for this account are inaccurate and no amount of allegedly " verifying '' and/or " updating '' the account information will fix the error ( s ). A preponderance of the evidence supplied in disputes over the past one ( 1 ) years shows XXXX has been incapable of providing accurate information for this account and has repeatedly refused to correct the false/misleading/inaccurate information it is supplying to the CRAs. It is therefore incumbent upon the CRAs to remove the account/tradeline if they do not want to be sued. The account XXXX is  referred to in XXXX responses by card number which ends XXXX  It can be matched using the attached document " XXXX XXXX