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

XXXX  wrongfully charged-off an account before the next statement due-date. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I contacted XXXX. The representative I spoke with informed me that as long as a payment was made BEFORE my next statement due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX my account would not be subject to XXXX. This would make sense given the billing cycle due date, commensurate per requirements under TILA/Regulation Z, was on or around day XXXX ( XXXX ) of each calendar month. My mother contacted XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to present payment via ACH transaction. She was told by the customer service representative that no payment on the account could be made because the account was charged-off. XXXX accepted a payment from my mother using the SAME account information as previously provided that was alleged to have been returned XXXX -- " unable to locate '' in XXXX of XXXX under confirmation number XXXX. I received a payment confirmation e-mail for the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payment -- note no notification was provided regarding processing of payment that returned XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received a notification that the account had been charged-off for {$8500.00}. This is despite a payment having been made on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to prevent charge-off, and despite a due-date of XXXX XXXX XXXX. The XXXX notification stated that no finance charges or late payments would be applied to the alleged balance thereafter. As of today, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax reports a XXXX with balance {$8300.00} and a narrative which states " Amount in high credit is original charge-off amount ''. In fact, having finished an investigation on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax claims XXXX provided the information and verified the information furnished for the account/tradeline is accurate. However, if the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX notification states a charge-off of {$8500.00}, while the data furnished to the CRAs notes {$8300.00} as the original charge-off amount, then this implies the CO took place immediately after a payment was made that prevents the account from being charged-off. Thus, unlike the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX statement from XXXX that alleges a charge-off on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, the account was charged-off XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and was done so BEFORE the statement due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The account was then likely charged-off because I'd admitted I'd contracted the XXXX virus on XXXX ( XXXX ) separate occasions that were followed by periods of XXXX that each lasted more than XXXX ( XXXX ) year. In essence I was a victim of credit discrimination and at present am being harmed due to XXXXXXXX XXXXs mismanagement of my account, ie. a failure to process payments and notify consumers about pertinent account information. The late payment and CO annotations furnished by XXXX to Equifax are based 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 XXXX. 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 occurring. 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. '' In a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX phone conversation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX stated the information hed been provided to investigate the returned payment of one-hundred ninety-three ( 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 discrepancy between the alleged balance that would be charged-off on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The correct account number and routing number with verbal authorization in the amount of one-hundred ninety-three ( XXXX ) dollars was given on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to prevent the account from being closed. 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 XXXX requests to other financial services institutions. 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 reasonably 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. When the payment was allegedly returned XXXX, I filed a billing error notice. XXXX initiated a billing error investigation, but ceased the investigation alleging that I had not provided outstanding documentation. I filed a CFPB complaint regarding the failure of XXXX to conduct a billing error investigation. At the same time my mother authorized a second payment on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, before the XXXX XXXX due-date from the SAME account, in the amount of two-hundred ( XXXX ) dollars to prevent the account from being charged-off. I have asked for is documentation regarding the billing error investigation that was allegedly conducted and reproductions of any and all, documents to substantiate that a billing error on the part of XXXX did not occur. This is allowed under 15 U.S.C. 1693f. I have received XXXX ( XXXX ) documentation in response to CFPB complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. Thus I have been denied an impartial billing error investigation. In fact in a follow-up conversation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX asserted that by using the XXXX credit card a consumer agrees to the provisions under the card agreement, and that as a result consumers waive their rights to remedy and protection under 15 U.S.C 1693, while 15 U.S. Code 1693l is quite clear in that no writing or other agreement between a consumer and any other person may contain any provision which constitutes a waiver of any right conferred or cause of action created by 15 U.S.C 1693. The account now reports with false and/or misleading information that gives the impression that I did not meet my financial obligations both to prevent the account from being closed in XX/XX/XXXX, and then charged-off sometime thereafter. The fact is I did beginning in late XX/XX/XXXX when the issues first presented ( see billing error ack. by XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) and continued to do so even afer the account was wrongfully charged-off. It has been a year since and XXXX still is still unable to correct their mistakes and those mistakes continue to harm me as I am now subjected to housing discrimination and instability because the account status now flags tenant screening companies as unsuitbale to rent an apartment based upon the alleged delinquency and repeated XXXX annotations for this account.