**NEW INFORMATION** DUNNING LETTER DATED XX/XX/XXXX ATTACHED Relating to original case numbers XXXX and XXXX. Creditor/furnisher 's response and continuance of reporting obsolete account information to CRAs violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 605 ( c ) per FTC docs attached as well as ORIGINAL DUNNING LETTER FROM CREDITOR ATTACHED. 

The response to original dispute from Creditor/Furnisher validates re-aging of the DOFD to the month prior to the Chapter XXXX discharge which is a violation of FCRA 605 ( c ). The FTC is clear on how to calculate the running period ( several FTC " Notices to Furnishers '' are attached ). The FTC is clear that the DOFD must remain unchanged & that any subsequent actions such as charge-off or discharge are irrelevant to the DOFD, yet creditor/furnisher has stated, in writing, that they have re-aged the account by changing the DOFD. 
1 ) Dunning letter from creditor/furnisher dated XX/XX/XXXX where DOFD for account is at least 90 days prior to date of letter, which is XX/XX/XXXX. 
2 ) Creditor/furnisher reported " Date Account Closed : XX/XX/XXXX '' which has been omitted/changed and re-aged to date of Chapter XXXX discharge which violates FCRA. 
3 ) FTC definition and remarks on FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 605 ( c ) clearly define the actions all furnishers/CRAs must adhere to for obsolete accounts, which this creditor/furnisher is in violation of. 
4 ) Creditor/Furnisher delayed chargeoff by 44 months post-DOFD, partial pmts were made, the account was never brought current therefore the DOFD must remain unchanged and the charge off/discharge date is irrelevant. 
5 ) The creditor/furnisher continues reporting an invalid date of XX/XX/XXXX for DOFD after consumer has disputed this information and provided adequate documentation for reasonable investigation of the account status as delinquent in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Creditor/furnisher violates FCRA if they fail to report the original DOFD within the required timeframe ( 90 days from DOFD ). If creditor/furnisher uses the date of discharge from Chapter XXXX BK they 're committing re-aging of the account through changing the DOFD. Either way, the creditor/furnisher is violating the FCRA as it prohibits creditors/furnishers from ever changing the DOFD per attached FTC Reports and opinion letters. FTC Staff Report ( 40 years of FCRA ) verbiage specifically states " Section 605 ( a ) ( 4 ) prohibits furnishers from reporting " Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years ''. 

Section 605 ( c ) # 3 ( page XXXX ) specifically states " 3. EVENTS OTHER THAN " COMMENCEMENT OF THE DELINQUENCY '' IRRELEVANT : The period is calculated from the date specified in this section, not subsequent events such as ( a ) the date the creditor first reported the chargeoff or a collection to the CRA ; ( b ) the dates of payments made or missed during the delinquency that leads to the chargeoff or collection ; ( c ) the date of sale or transfer of the account from the original creditor to another creditor ; or ( d ) the date a consumer disputes the debt. '' All creditors/furnishers where accounts were discharged in Chapter XXXX have removed their account tradelines from credit file in accordance ( and unprompted ) with the FCRA. If this creditor/furnisher 's explanation to original dispute were accurate, all other accounts would have remained on credit file yet they do not, they 've been correctly removed due to their obsolescence. The Remediation Analyst who contends reporting this account is valid is XXXX XXXX at XXXX ext. XXXX, she is from the Executive Office of the creditor/furnisher, though it 's concerning that the EO does n't seem to understand the running period requirement as defined in FCRA 605 ( c ). I 've taken the liberty of attaching the FTC Staff Reports and opinions regarding similar disputes in an effort to assist XXXX XXXX with her interpretation.