Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, a merged mortgage credit report pulled for a home loan showed multiple reporting inaccuracies across several furnishers and all three nationwide credit bureaus. I am not disputing ownership of the accounts. I am disputing how theyre being reported ( balances, dates, status codes, duplications, and formatting ). Details : Bank of America XXXX card ( charged off ) Reported with High Credit/Limit {$6300.00}, Balance {$7100.00}, Past Due {$7100.00}, status Charge Off, late history in XXXX, and an internal DLA of XX/XX/XXXX with other late markers shown through XX/XX/XXXX. 

Issues : Balance shown above the limit ( may include fees/interest ) but is being displayed as past due while also coded charge-off. After charge-off, past-due is typically reported as {$0.00} and the amount moved to charge-off/collection, rather than continuing to accrue as past due.

Date logic conflict ( late markers shown beyond the internal DLA ). Please reconcile the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and late history so the timeline is consistent and not re-aged by later updates. 

XXXX two historical installment charge-offs ( XXXX and XXXX originations ) Both show Status : Charge Off and {$0.00} balance today ; one shows an original charge-off amount of {$8000.00}, and both display late dates in XXXX. One item reflects recent update activity in XX/XX/XXXX despite a XXXX DOFD timeframe. 

Issues : Ensure both are coded closed with {$0.00} balance and {$0.00} past due, and confirm no recent-status updates are shifting the DOFD ( no re-aging ).

If both lines reference the same obligation at different stages ( e.g., sale/transfer ), please deduplicate so the same charge-off is not effectively counted twice. 

XXXX  XXXX possible duplicate/overlapping entries One closed XXXX XXXX card shows XXXX late history and Paid, was XXXX with closed XX/XX/XXXX. A separate XXXX XXXX line ( appearing under Open Accounts ) displays a note Account previously in disputenow resolvedreported by subscriber with fragmented/thin fields.

Issues : Please confirm whether there are two distinct accounts. If its one account appearing twice ( one historic, one now resolved ), remove the duplicate.

If both are valid and separate, ensure the previously in dispute remark is appropriate and that neither line is double-counting derogatory history. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX servicing  transfer XXXX XXXX shows paid/transfer ( opened XX/XX/XXXX, paid XX/XX/XXXX ), and XXXX shows the current FHA loan ( opened 11/2024, balance reported {$400000.00}, terms 360 ).

Issues : Please confirm XXXX reports {$0.00} balance with no payment history after transfer, and XXXX reflects the full and only current active payment history from transfer forward ( no overlapping derogatories across the transfer window ). 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX entry Appears under Open Accounts with opened XX/XX/XXXX and last reported XX/XX/XXXX. 

Issue : This looks like a tenant screening / rental record, not a revolving/installment credit account. Please recode or remove it from active tradelines and ensure its excluded from utilization or payment-performance calculations. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( secured line ) Several of these lines show closures or secured status and appear current/low balance.

Issues : Please confirm each is coded consistently ( e.g., closed at consumers request vs general closed ), that credit limits/terms are present where they should be, and that utilization calculations use accurate limits.

Address history formatting/recency The report lists multiple addresses across DC, MD, and TX with varied reported ranges ( e.g., MD  XXXX ; TX addresses reported XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Issue : Please verify and remove any address entries that can not be substantiated by furnishers or that are erroneously tied to tradelines, to avoid future mis-matching.

Bottom line : Im not contesting that these are my accounts. Im requesting accurate, consistent, and non-duplicative reporting in line with FCRA and industry data standards ( e.g., correct charge-off coding, no re-aging, proper transfer handling, and accurate utilization inputs ).

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation