Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

[ 1 ] A charge-off for an XXXX  accout is alleged to have occurred on XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( see response from XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ). The account/tradeline as reported by Experian shows a CO first occurring in XX/XX/XXXX. Thats is false/misleading/inaccurate, since XXXX alleges the CO occurred on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. [ 2 ] On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  XXXX provided a response with a table of payment history that shows an alleged payment was thirty ( 30 ) days past-due for XX/XX/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 alleged late payment history is not possible within a span of a single billing cycle, ie. a nominal thirty ( 30 ) day period. [ 3 ] Experian reports the account is scheduled to report on-record until XX/XX/XXXX. Backing out seven ( 7 ) years indicates the Date of First Delinquency for the account would be on or up to one-hundred fifty ( 150 ) days BEFORE XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  date is not possible based upon Experian 's own data, which shows the account status was " current/ Terms Met. '' 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/XXXXXXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX. But, the CO is alleged to have occurred on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, 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, Experian 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 account. Moreover, Experian knows or should know the errors will not change simply by updating the account/tradeline with XXXX. Yet, Experian has updated the account/tradeline on at least two ( 2 ) occasions since XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, with Experian " specialists '' chosing to change the nature of my disputes such that the dispute would simply be resolved by automatically updating and/or verifying the account information with XXXX. That process does 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 Experian, which implies XXXX IS the source of the false/misleading/inaccurate information. Experian is required to report accounts/tradelines with maximum possible accuracy. On its face, the payment history and status codes for this account are inaccurat and no amount of allegedly " verifying '' and/or " updating '' the account information wil 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 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 " matching_from_statements_to_docs_by_bal.pdf ''.