Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Law Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX URGENT DEMAND FOR DELETION Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation and Gross Reporting Inaccuracies Disputed Account : BANK OF AMERICA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to formally demand the immediate deletion of the Bank of America account referenced above from my credit file. On XX/XX/XXXX, your agency issued an Investigation Results notice claiming this disputed item was verified as accurate. This verification is a gross misrepresentation of fact and a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Not only is the data your agency is reporting mathematically and chronologically impossible on its face, but it also fundamentally contradicts written records directly from the data furnisher, Bank of America. There are severe discrepancies between the financial information XXXX XXXX has verified and the information Bank of America holds. Your agency verified the Balance, High Balance, Original Charge- off, and Past Due amounts for this account as exactly {$34000.00}, with a Date Updated of XX/XX/XXXX. However, Bank of America Claims Resolution stated on XX/XX/XXXX, that the claim amount owed is {$37000.00}. Your agency and the data furnisher are reporting materially different financial obligations. Verifying a balance that directly conflicts with the furnisher 's own records proves that no substantive reinvestigation occurred. Furthermore, Bank of America associates this account with an incorrect address at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. The bank explicitly based a recent claim denial on the assertion that statements were mailed to this incorrect address, where I do not reside. Verifying an account heavily reliant on an incorrect address demonstrates a catastrophic failure in identity and data matching procedures. In addition to the furnisher discrepancies, the tradeline itself contains mathematical and chronological impossibilities. Your report states a Last Payment Made occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite this documented payment, the Balance and Original Charge-off amounts remain identical at {$34000.00}. It is mathematically impossible for a payment to be applied to an account without reducing the current Balance or the Past Due amount. Chronologically, your report explicitly lists the Date Closed as XX/XX/XXXX. However, the remarks state there was a maximum delinquency of XXXX days in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. It is legally and chronologically impossible for an account to accrue standard XXXX delinquency milestones months after the account has been closed and charged off. Moreover, the month-by-month reporting grid reflects overlapping and entirely contradictory statuses. The report displays a string of standard delinquencies and " OK '' statuses throughout XXXX and XXXX, while another section simultaneously displays a continuous string of Charge Off statuses for those exact same months. An account can not simultaneously be in good standing, progressively late, and charged off during the identical reporting periods. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), credit reporting agencies are strictly mandated to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Retaining internally contradictory information, especially when it directly conflicts with the furnisher 's own records, is a blatant violation of this standard. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), your agency is required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court ruled that credit reporting agencies can not merely act as a conduit and parrot information provided by a furnisher when the consumer points out discrepancies or when the data is inherently flawed. Your automated verification system ignored facially evident chronological errors and balance mismatches that no reasonable manual review would have approved. Reporting data that is logically inconsistent constitutes actionable inaccuracy under XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, because such contradictions are inherently misleading to creditors. Your agency failed to correct these glaring errors during the initial dispute process, establishing negligent and willful noncompliance with the FCRA. I demand that this unverified, structurally flawed, and legally inaccurate tradeline be deleted in its entirety within fifteen ( 15 ) days of your receipt of this notice. If this account is not permanently removed from my credit file, I will pursue litigation for statutory and actual damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 15 U.S.C. 1681o, and I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Texas Attorney General. I expect an updated copy of my credit report reflecting this deletion sent to my address immediately upon completion.

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