Consumer complaint received 2025-11-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
This is not a duplicate complaint. It includes new, material evidence showing that Discovers internal payment plan scheduled my second XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  payment after the deadlinecreating the false delinquency that led to the charge-off. This scheduling error and its impact have never been addressed in any prior Discover or CFPB response. 

Here is the previous response that has never been answered. You keep ignoring the facts that I am mentioning and giving the same response without hearing me. 

1. Discovers response repeats prior conclusions without addressing the documented timing conflict that started the issue. Discovers response simply restates the same explanation given in XXXX  and XXXX, without acknowledging the key factual error : Discovers own payment program scheduled the second installment ( XX/XX/XXXX ) one day after the required XX/XX/XXXX deadline. That payment plan was created and managed by Discover not by me. Both payments ( {$94.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and {$85.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ) cleared successfully and together exceeded the {$150.00} minimum payment Discover required. By failing to credit those payments toward the XXXX requirement, Discover internally treated the account as delinquent when, in fact, I met the financial obligation according to their own setup. Their XX/XX/XXXX letter completely ignores this timeline inconsistency. 2. Their explanation of a returned payment in XX/XX/XXXX doesnt address the root cause of the charge-off. Even if a payment later failed in XXXX, that would not have occurred had the account not already been flagged delinquent due to the XXXX scheduling flaw. This makes the XXXX event a symptom of Discovers original misclassification, not the true cause of default. Discover has not produced any documentation showing : That the XXXX return preceded the charge-off decision timeline ; or That they recalculated delinquency status after XX/XX/XXXX using both XXXX payments. Without this context, their claim that the XXXX return caused the charge-off is unsupported and incomplete. XXXX. Discovers reliance on prior letters ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) is not evidence of resolution. Repeating a conclusion multiple times is not the same as verifying accuracy. Each of their previous responses failed to provide : A full transaction ledger for XXXX XXXX ; Internal policy documents showing how payments made under reduced payment programs are applied ; and Any acknowledgment that both payments were made under their direction and exceeded the minimum. Repetition does not equal validation and the absence of those records means Discover has not met its FCRA 623 ( b ) duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 4. Their advice to contact the credit bureaus disregards FCRA obligations placed on the furnisher. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the responsibility for accuracy lies first with the furnisher ( Discover ) not the consumer. Advising me to dispute directly with XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX  ignores their ongoing duty under 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to ensure that the information they report is accurate and complete. Discover can not defer that responsibility to the bureaus when their own internal data error created the reporting inaccuracy. 5. Their refusal to respond to additional correspondence contradicts CFPB expectations for good-faith resolution. Discovers statement that they may not respond to additional inquiries effectively shuts down dialogue while the dispute remains unresolved. That position is inconsistent with the CFPBs intent that furnishers meaningfully engage when a consumer provides new or clarifying evidence which I have, multiple times, including documentation of both XXXX payments, the program offer, and proof of overdraft to cover the first payment. XXXX. XXXX prior deletion still matters. Discovers response ignores the fact that XXXX  previously deleted the charge-off after its own review confirming that at least XXXX bureau found the tradeline unverifiable. If Discover re-reported the charge-off after that deletion, it triggers FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) reinsertion rules. To date, Discover has not demonstrated that those reinsertion obligations were met or that they re-certified the accuracy of the tradeline before re-reporting. Requested Actions I am requesting that the CFPB : Direct Discover to provide complete internal documentation showing how the XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments were applied and how the delinquency status was calculated. Require Discover to substantiate its claim that the XX/XX/XXXX event was the direct cause of the charge-off, with supporting timestamps and account records. Verify whether Discover complied with reinsertion procedures under FCRA after XXXX deletion. Require Discover to correct or remove the charge-off if it can not validate the timeline with objective evidence. Closing Statement I have acted in good faith at every step, made my required payments under the plan Discover itself established, and provided extensive supporting documentation. Discovers response fails to address the factual conflict at the core of this case and instead repeats prior determinations without evidence. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the CFPB to pursue further investigation and direct Discover to provide full verification or correction of this tradeline.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation