I have notified XXXX  about two companies that are reporting to my credit file in XX/XX/XXXX alone : 1 ) Meade & Associates : I have disputed this account with XXXX   and Meade & Associates - with Meade and Assoc. sending me an error filled itemized statement as " validation '' of this alleged {$3100.00} debt. You can take one look at this statement and see that it is broken into two categories, " debts '' and " credits ''. I have tried to explain to both XXXX  and Meade & Associates that per last page on the statement sheet the {$3100.00} is in the " credits '' column. I have asked why I owe that after I had already graduated? The school I went to would not even let you go on to the  next quarter if you owed {$10.00} - let alone three thousand plus and let me graduate, which I did. Per the statement on the last page is the last " business '' dealing with the school was on XX/XX/XXXX. Then on XX/XX/XXXX, seventeen months after I graduated, this mysterious charge comes up for {$3100.00}. However, in the box below the last line item on the last page of the statement is a small box with three totals that all say XXXX. There is no explanation and the {$3100.00} is located in the " CREDITS '' column. If you look at the first page of the statement on XX/XX/XXXX ( first line item entry ), there is a debit in the amount of {$60.00} for " Entrance Exam Fee '' - that is money I owe the school. The next item right under that on the same date states " Payment -Credit Card '' and shows a {$60.00} payment in the CREDITS column - showing that I paid the school that amount of money - IT IS IN THE SAME COLUMN AS THE {$3100.00}. So, I ask - how do I owe this? The last page also shows multiple line items for " Work Study Earning Payment '' which is where the school hired me to tutor incoming students and my weekly hours X hourly rate went towards my tuition - notice they are in the CREDITS column that would show that this is money that has been credited to the school. I have sent extensive evidence of this to both XXXX   and Meade with an outright refusal to remove this from my credit file. I notified both Meade & Assoc. as well as XXXX  via certified mail and with detailed follow along instructions on this multiple times. 
I have disputed this account with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX - with phone dispute with CSR at XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  which again resulted in being told by Supervisor that XXXX  has not duty to look at this evidence I sent them showing the account is in fact erroneous and invalidated. The Supervisor advised me that I my dispute was sent to Meade and " verified '' as being mine. I asked how it was verified and could not get a straight answer out of the Supervisor. I advised her that XXXX is in violation of the 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( 2 ) ( b ) - " Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information '' which calls for agency ( XXXX ) to promptly delete the item of information from the file of the consumer. I asked how it could come back as correct when it shows everything explained above? Again, to no meaningful response. Therefore, there was no true investigation of the item by XXXX. This is to be deleted from my credit file in no less than 10 days. I am preparing to exercise my private right of action which allows injured consumers like me to impose fines upon debt collectors like Meade & Associates and credit bureaus such as XXXX  in this case. I will not hesitate as well to file suit against both Meade and XXXX for negligent and reckless handling of my protected information against my good name. I have been denied car loans with the help of the Meade & Assoc 's account on my credit, as well as various credit cards - please take heed that I will request punitive damages for this as well as this has now become willfull ( XXXX v. XXXX  XXXX, 619 F.2d 700, 703 ( 8th Cir. XX/XX/XXXX ) ). 

XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, 249 F. Supp. 2d 851, 856 ( W.D. Ky. XX/XX/XXXX ) ( The court held, " One could infer from the evidence that XXXX included incorrect data on Plaintiff 's claims report ; that Plaintiff complained about this false information ; and that after the original mistakes were corrected, more incorrect claims data reappeared on her report and remained well after the suit was filed. Based on this series of events, a jury could certainly conclude that a reasonably prudent company would have prevented a similar outcome ''.