Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

On or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I received an e-mail from Equifax notifying me they'd finished their reinvestigation for an XXXX XXXX account ending XXXX. Equifax alleges the information has been verified as reported by XXXX as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The account was alleged by XXXX to have been charged from profit to loss on XXXX XXXX XXXX, quoting XXXX DIRECTLY : " Because of the continued delinquency status of your account, it was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX. '' ( Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to the law the Date of First Delinquency reported must be a date that precedes the date the account is placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( 5 ) ( A ) ). Further, the date of delinquency determines how long the debt can be reported on a consumer 's credit report ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). A CRA may report a delinquent debt for seven years from the date of delinquency. Currently Equifax and XXXX report the Date of First Delinquency as XX/XX/XXXX. But, XXXX own responses to CFPB complaints state plainly the account was charged from profit to loss on XXXX XXXX XXXX Despite that fact, XXXX verifies the date as XX/XX/XXXX each time this account is disputed through the CRAs. That is unfair ( 12 U.S. Code 5531 ) and unlawful ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ). The FTC has an entire web page " Consumer Reports : What Information Furnishers Need to Know '' which spells all of this out, going as far as to addresses the illegality of changing the date of first delinquency on a consumers account to a later date that is ( a date AFTER a date of charge off, ) referring to it as an unlawful re-aging of an account. Even if the date is " sticky, '' the CRAs, specifically XXXX and Equifax, have XXXX ( XXXX ) excuse for continuing to persist the information when it is inaccurate on its face. Equifax and XXXX can not claim they do not know account ending XXXX in my credit files is the same account with with card ending XXXX because they can match the account/trade by balance and confirm the card number and account number match the same set of information. I have disputed this issue at least twenty ( 20 ) times over XXXX with Equifax and XXXX directly and/or through the CFPB. I have also disputed it directly through the CFPB with XXXX. In fact XXXX knows there is a consistent problem with the way they are reporting this account because the try and gloss over it, " The account has been updated since our last response on XXXX XXXX XXXX  and now reflects as an unpaid charged off account. An account that is charged off indicates that the debt has been written off as a loss to our company due to serious delinquency on the account... It is important to know your account charge off date of XXXX XXXX has not changed, '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX ). Really? If it hasn't " changed, '' then was the information ever reported accurately to the CRAs? It doesn't sound like it especially considering it's being reported as a charged-off account for the first time in XX/XX/XXXX for what XXXX claims took place XXXX XXXX XXXX. That's not within the ninety ( 90 ) period required ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s2a ( 5 ) ( A ) ). Whereas accounts are required to be changed from profit to loss within six ( 6 ) billing cycles after not receiving payment ( see 65 FR 36903 ), XXXX reported the account as consistently delinquent by one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. At this point the CRAs know or have reasonable cause to believe the information is incorrect : the date of first delinquency as reported by Equifax and XXXX is a month for which the account is reported as " paid on time '' in the payment history. XXXX own responses to the CFPB clearly say " The account was charged off on XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Thus, upon receiving the disputes from the CRAs, XXXX XXXX was to have long ago modified the date of first delinquency to the date PRECEDING XXXX XXXX XXXX, deleted the charge-off payment history and charge-off remarks, or permanently blocked the Charge-off history and remarks from its reporting ( FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) because they know or have reason to believe the information they are furnishing is inaccurate. They did not and have failed to notify each CRA to which they provided inaccurate information which is required ( Furnisher Rule 660.4 ( e ) ). XXXX has engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and those practices continue to harm me as a consumer.