Consumer complaint received 2026-04-22 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding materially inaccurate, misleading, and internally inconsistent reporting by Bank of America concerning a charged-off credit card account appearing on my XXXX credit report. Bank of America is reporting this account as follows : Account charged off. {$8100.00} written off. {$8100.00} past due as of XXXX XXXX. The tradeline also reflects a payment-history progression in XXXX from 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 days late, then CO beginning in XX/XX/XXXX and continuing monthly into XXXX. At the same time, the account is described as having been written off, while still reporting the same full amount as both a present balance and a past-due amount. This reporting is materially misleading and requires correction. A furnisher can not maintain a tradeline that presents contradictory debt-status information in a manner that misleads readers about the true character, status, and chronology of the account. Bank of America is effectively reporting this account as both charged off and continuously, freshly delinquent month after month, while also describing the amount as written off. That creates an inaccurate and deceptive impression of the accounts status and ongoing risk. My concerns are specific : First, Bank of America is reporting {$8100.00} written off while also reporting {$8100.00} past due and a current balance of {$8100.00}. If Bank of America contends that the account was charged off and written off, it must explain with precision how the same amount is being characterized simultaneously as written off and currently past due, and whether that reporting accurately reflects the legal and accounting status of the debt. Second, Bank of America appears to be repeatedly refreshing the charge-off notation month after month in XXXX. A charge-off is a single event, not a new monthly derogatory occurrence. Repetitive monthly CO reporting can materially mislead creditors and scoring systems by making the derogatory event appear continuously renewed rather than historically fixed. Third, the tradeline states it will remain on record until XX/XX/XXXX. Bank of America must identify the exact Date of First Delinquency used to calculate that obsolescence date and provide the documentary basis for that date. If the reporting period is being calculated from an incorrect event date rather than the actual first delinquency that led to charge-off, the continued reporting period may be unlawful. Fourth, if Bank of America has received prior notice of dispute, whether directly, through a consumer reporting agency, or through any prior complaint process, it was required to conduct a reasonable investigation and ensure that all furnished information remained complete and accurate. If it intends to maintain this tradeline as reported, then it should be required to explain exactly how each field was verified, what records were reviewed, and how it reconciled the account status, past-due amount, charge-off date, payment history, and obsolescence date into one coherent and accurate account history. This account is harming my credit profile through reporting that is at minimum misleading and at worst inaccurate in multiple key fields. Bank of America should not be permitted to report one version of the account for credit-reporting purposes while reserving another version for collection or litigation purposes. If the account is accurate, Bank of America should be able to produce a single, consistent, documented explanation for the amount, timing, and status it is reporting. If it can not do that, the tradeline should be corrected or deleted. I am requesting the following relief : 1. A full investigation into the accuracy and completeness of this tradeline. 2. Written identification of the exact Date of First Delinquency used for this account. 3. Written identification of the exact charge-off date used for this account. 4. A written explanation of how Bank of America can simultaneously report the same {$8100.00} as written off, past due, and currently owed. 5. A written explanation of why CO continues to appear in multiple XXXX monthly payment-history fields after the charge-off event. 6. Correction of any inaccurate or misleading fields. 7. Deletion of the tradeline if Bank of America can not fully substantiate the reporting with competent account-level records and a legally coherent explanation. I am attaching screenshots of the XXXX reporting that show the contradictory status language, payment history, balance, and removal date. I request that Bank of America respond with specificity and not generic boilerplate.

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