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

XXXX XXXX responded on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to a consumer complaint I filed with my State 's Attorney General regarding furnishing of alleged payment history and account status to consumer reporting agencies ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response ). In it they make claims that contradict the statements provided in prior responses to my CFPB complaints. Both collections agencies with whom XXXX returned the account to XXXX. The second collection, XXXX, returned the account to XXXX because XXXX was alleged to have engaged in credit discrimination, XXXX discrimination, and violations of consumer protection laws and regulations over the course of XXXX. It was returned on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with an effective date in XXXX XXXX. XXXX asserts it placed the account in a charged-off status on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is likely to have occurred AFTER it was returned by XXXX in XXXX. In their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX acknowledges re-aging the account due to receipt of a single billing error notice it alleged to have received in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response, p. XXXX, par. XXXX ). Yet, the data reflected in the consumer reports with XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion consistently indicate the account re-aging did not take place until XX/XX/XXXX, where the status was reported as " pays as agreed. '' Note, this is at the same time the debt was allegedly charged from balance to loss, " charged-off '', by XXXX for tax purposes. Moreover, XXXX acknowledges receiving a billing error notice, filed by its first collections agent in XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response, p. 1 par. 2 and p. 2, par. 1 ). In response to the XX/XX/XXXX billing error notice XXXX marked the account as current for periods XX/XX/XXXX until on or around XX/XX/XXXX. They then began reporting the account as delinquent, advancing the delinquency each month by thirty ( 30 ) days, until XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX then began supplying payment history and account status to the CRAs alleging the account was current " pays-as-agreed. '' Note, I had not received any notification or resolution to the billing error investigation ( XXXX ) allegedly undertaken sometime between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX began reporting the account as delinquent ( again ) for the periods XX/XX/XXXX through present. Now XXXX also acknowledges " re-aging '' the alleged debt in CFPB complaints XXXX & XXXX ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response from XXXX p.1 par. 3 in conjunction with XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response p.1, par. 3 ). In XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response XXXX claims the re-aging of the account was direct result of the billing error notices I filed. Moreover they claim it is for this reason the account has not been listed in " charged-off '' status in the information they are supplying to the CRAs to-date. Finally, XXXX claims the charge-off has not been reported to the CRAs because I was allegedly enrolled in a " financial relief program '' ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response XXXX. Yet, in their response to CFPB complaints XXXX & XXXX XXXX states they found no re-payment agreement corresponding to the alleged debt. A financial relief program would require that I consented to have my payments reduced and/or the time of repayment extended. It is now XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Clearly this account has not and still is not being reported with accurate and verifiable information. The re-aging process to rectify past errors in XXXX billing and reporting has only compounded the issue because the re-aging has effectively reset an account to current, and then arbitrarily reported the account as past-due months later, and advanced the outstanding amount due and duration of delinquency by thirty ( 30 ) days, without providing me notice. To be clear, I have not received a bill in accordance with TILARegulation Z since on or around XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX system has allegedly not generated bills of any kind since XX/XX/XXXX ( see XXXX response XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX par. XXXX ). In addition, I have never received notifications describing the outcome of billing error investigations. Since initial re-aging, the past-due balance reflected in my credit files with XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion has never reflected an alleged amount outstanding commensurate with the full balance, but has instead reflected monthly outstanding amounts equal to the alleged outstanding amount for a previous interval, plus an additional XXXX dollars. The intervals appear appear to correspond to a billing cycle/closing date. Under the traditional XXXX credit scoring models XXXX  ( XXXX ) of an individual 's credit score is computed based upon payment history to include number of missed payments, number of periods of delinquencies, and duration of delinquency over the previous two ( 2 ) year period. At the very least, my credit scores with XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion, and my rental scores ( for tenant screening ) with XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reflect recent delinquencies, and recent duration of delinquency, that are fictitious. As a consumer, and a human being, I am continuing to experience harm as result. In short, XXXX has been trying to fix errors in XXXX that led to an unwarranted charge-off at the end of XXXX. It is now causing me maximal harm in XXXX because the periods of delinquency reflect not only as having occurred within the XXXX ( XXXX ) years immediately prior to present, but additionally reflect at least one period of delinquency spanning 180 past-due within the last six ( 6 ) months. I have been denied apartments within the last two ( 2 ) months with an income well into six ( 6 ) figures as a result. I am experiencing housing instability as consequence. This is not okay and is patently putative, not to mention unlawful, unfair, and abusive. While XXXX has sought to blame the CRAs for the issue claiming it " couldn't change information that is 'accurate ' and has no control over how the CRAs present the information XXXX furnishes to them, '' ( see XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response p. 1, par. 3 ), the data for the XXXX account, as presented by XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion, is nearly identical. Given the contradictions supplied here and evidenced in the attached documents, XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion know or should know the payment history for XX/XX/XXXX through present is inaccurate.