Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received a response to a dispute I filed regarding a XXXX account/tradeline as reported by TransUnion.TransUnion alleges the pay status, date of charge-off, outstanding balance, and payment remarks are " accurate. '' It is not. The maximum delinquency for the account is alleged to be one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days and is alleged to have occured both in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. However, if the maximum delinquency was one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days, and that status was reached in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, then it is not possible for the account to have been charged-off in XX/XX/XXXX as alleged in the attached XXXX response to CFPB complaint dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX because a delinquency at one-hundred twenty days would have led to a charge-off on or around XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX previously came to the same conclusion in a prior dispute and changed the date of alleged C/O to XX/XX/XXXX to match the documents I supplied. However, this date is dubious as well becuase the account would have been one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days past-due for the month of XX/XX/XXXX as well. While XXXX alleges the account was charged-off at the end of XX/XX/XXXX, their notifications to me on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX show the account was allegedly charged-off AFTER accepting a payment that would have prevented the account from being charged-off. Charging-off an account AFTER accepting a payment, before the next statement due date that would have prevented the account from being charged-off, is an unfair act or practice and is unlawful under Section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) of the CFPA. Under Section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) an act or practice is unfair if it : ( a ) causes or is likely to cause consumers substantial injury ; ( b ) such injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers ; and ( c ) such injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. The unfair nature of the charge-off itself is evident in the account/tradeline as reported by XXXX  in the attached documents, in which the last payment was reported as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX ( see p. XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  for notification at XXXX XXXX UTC ), followed by a C/O notification on same day ( see notification sent at XXXX hours AFTER payment accepted on XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Even more unfair is that no posting date was specified by XXXX 's system leading the account to process as charged-off BEFORE the next statement due-date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. For its part, XXXX responded to CFPB complaint XXXX on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX claiming they are furnishing the information accurately and that XXXX is XXXX for any inaccurate reporting ( see p. XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Given the payment history furnished by XXXX, and as reported by XXXX, the charge-off action is dubious and the account as reported is inchoate. There is no codified date of first delinquency from which to affix a charge-off status that would occur uniquely in XX/XX/XXXX with an alleged maximum delinquency of one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) days. In examining the information XXXX furnished to Equifax, Equifax alleges the date of first delinquency was in XXXX of XXXX -- that's two years prior and corresponds to a month the account was reported " pays as agreed, '' ( see " XXXX '' ). Meanwhile, XXXX reports a similar inchoate payment history and alleged month of charge-off with months of no data reported and no accurate date of first delinquency ( see " XXXX '' ). The CRAs are required to report this account with maximum possible accuracy. Yet, even at the most basic level XXXX continues to report the account as a monthly obligation, which implies future monthly payment obligations. Serious harm is caused when an account is both reported as charged-off and simultaneously reported with monthly payment obligations ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). Now, even if the inchoate information supplied by XXXX to XXXX were technically accurate, it nevertheless gives any potential creditor a misleading impression -- that is still considered an error under 15 USC 1681e. Given the contradictory information furnished by XXXX, and the unfair nature of the charge-off itself, the inaccurate payment history and inaccurate account status, the accountt/tradeline is clearly not reconcileable. Any reasonable individual examining the documents I've supplied would arrive at the same conclusion. Yet, rather than delete the unreconcileable, derogatory, and defamatory, payment history, payment status, and payment remarks, XXXX continues to persist the false/misleading/inaccurate information and then allege the account is accurate as reported because XXXX has allegedly verified the accuracy of contradictory pieces of information for the account/tradeline.