This relates to the " credit card payment '' made monthly every month for {$25.00} automatically deducted from my checking account before Bank of America owned the account and since ; as of XX/XX/XXXX. Today, I received a letter in the mailbox regarding a CFPB complaint # XXXX ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) regarding XXXX accounts ending # XXXX ( fraudulent credit reporting akin to the XXXX XXXX scandal fake accounts ; # XXXX which contains money from a credit union never affiliated with Bank of America at any point in time ) ; # XXXX ( XXXX/Bankof America ) or XXXX who was XXXX ' guarantor and who paid XXXX after XXXX broke a regulation that in turn triggered default detailed in the letter today. ) The problem with all three of these accounts in the response is the missing account that should have been reported but which Bank of America REFUSED to furnish positive reporting about. So this missing " credit card payment '' is AWOL on all XXXX of my credit reports despite this sentence in the letter : " ... Federal law requires Bank of America to report a fair and accurate payment history ... '' Therefore, if the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is the goal, then Bank of America failed miserably on that goal. To correct this first of all, this account which is currently inside my bankruptcy should have been on my credit report. BOA knows about this account because they sent me a letter that I could not access it. So why is this account not being reported at any time by BOA since they acquired the account? It makes no sense. The Customer Service people over the years and the credit reporting agencies do not proactively go after the furnisher of data ( BOA or XXXX/Bank of America ) for omissions from the credit reports. They have no problem keeping an account closed XX/XX/XXXX on in perpetuity and yet refuse to put the active account XX/XX/XXXX from ever reaching the printed page of any credit reporting agency. This is wrong. It is hypocritical. Additionally, " XXXX/Bank of XXXX '' threw XXXX XXXX and XXXX " under the bus '' on the student lonas that they approved the identical IBR for. The key distinction is that XXXX XXXX had a dual role : XXXX was both a servicer of XXXX loans and a guarantor of the one serviced by XXXX. How unfortunate it is that a XXXX servicer would be able to usurp a guarantor. Ultimately the federal government and the taxpayer will pay for the 57 % defaults that are being created by these rogue servicers. I read yesterday inthe XXXX that teachers are suing XXXX for turning their grants into loans after they also followed the process correctly. XXXX is a huge problem because the behavior it exhibited in XXXX and XXXX is in the best interest of a nervous bank wanting to get paid for a loan sooner rather than later. The letter today also had this present-tense sentence : " In conjunction with your credit card accounts, you have a Bank of America Education Loan ... '' Not true. All these are in the past. XXXX credit card closed XX/XX/XXXX and the other they listed XX/XX/XXXX are not Bank of America accounts. The none that is a current account was not listed in the letter nor in the credit report furnishing they do regularly since acquiring the account. The long and the short of it is this : Bank of America and servicer ( not guarantor ) XXXX took great pains to furnish false obsolete data to third parties and refuses to report correct positive data that fits with their claim stated above. Why? Incidentally, I am not the one using " credit card payment '' to refer to the absent account attached to my checking account. They are the precise XXXX words used by the bank on the downloaded information on said account. Double speak is what the letter by BOA and all the attached correspondence is that reflects a year 's worth of hassle since last year 's free credit reports brought it to my attention in color and in black and white. It did n't read the pages