Complaint sub-issue: Investigation took more than 30 days

I sent a dispute to the credit reporting agency in regards to some inaccuracies I found on my credit report on XX/XX/XXXX. According to the FCRA, credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, ( Turner v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 2018 WL 3648282, at *3 ( 6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2018 ) ; Peart v. Shippie, 345 Fed. Appx. 384 ( 11th Cir. 2009 ) ). At this time, Ive provided the information to the credit reporting agency on XX/XX/XXXX and they have failed to conduct that reasonable investigation which indicates a violation of the act ( Andrews v. Equifax Info. Serv., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1276 ( W.D. Wash. 2010 ) ). 
In my dispute to the credit reporting agency on XX/XX/XXXX, I explained my dispute in detail and requested for an investigation to be conducted regarding the information on my credit profile. In my research, one court noted : XXXX t ] he standard of conduct by which the agencys action is to be judged is deeply rooted in the law of negligence : what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. ( Poore v. Sterling Testing Sys., Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 557 ( E.D. Ky. 2006 ), citing Bryant v. TRW , Inc., 487 F. Supp. 1234, 1242 ( E.D. Mich. 1980 ), affd, 689 F.2d 72 ( 6th Cir. 1982 ) ). 
I want to see what that the credit reporting agencys procedures are reasonably designed to prevent inaccuracies, but also whether the agency actually followed its own procedures. ( Rothery v. Trans Union , L.L.C., 2006 WL 1720498 ( D. Or. Apr. 6, 2006 ) ). It is not enough that a CRA have procedures in place. The employees must follow those procedures in each and every report they prepare ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). See Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Sols., Inc. , 238 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1346 ( N.D. Fla. 2017 ) ( CRAs failure to following its own procedures for matching consumers with common names was evidence of willfulness ) ). The CRA must not just have reasonable rules, but the employees must strictly follow those internal CRA rules. ( Carroll v. Exxon Co., 434 F. Supp. 557 ( E.D. La. 1977 ). Cf. Smith v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 2704719 ( D. Nev. July 7, 2008 ) ( fact that furnisher ignored its own policy and procedure manual could raise issue of fact as to whether it conducted reasonable investigation ) ). 
In Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., the Eleventh Circuit explained that a consumer satisfies their initial burden by presenting evidence tending to show that the CRA published a consumer report containing inaccurate data. Ive done this on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Per the settlement with a multistate group of Attorneys General, ( Assurance of Voluntary Compliance/Assurance of Voluntary Discontinuance, In the Matter of Equifax Info. Serv. L.L.C., XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( F ) ( XXXX ) ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX, and supervision by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX the system was somewhat reformed, but serious deficiencies remain XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Years after a Key Report, Consumers Are Still Frustrated Trying to Fix Credit Reporting Errors ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
In my research, according to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), the credit reporting agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file..... before the end of the XXXX-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. Since I mailed the letter, Ive allowed XXXX days for mail time to the credit reporting agency which would mean the credit reporting agency, according to my calculations, had until XX/XX/XXXX to provide their response to my investigation.