{"took":385,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":288,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18277917","_score":21.820995,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this update to provide a clear timeline and to document XXXX continued failure to resolve my student loan servicing dispute despite multiple written requests. \n\n* * Timeline of Events : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I submitted a written request to Aidvantage requesting a complete life-of-loan payment history audit, including reconciliation of all payments, documentation related to a servicer transfer, and confirmation of how overpayments were applied. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I received a mailed document package from Aidvantage. Upon review, the materials provided were incomplete and did not satisfy my request. The documents consisted primarily of transaction listings and summary records and did not include a full payment audit, loan-by-loan allocation of payments, disclosure of any suspense or unapplied funds, or reconciliation of pre-transfer payments. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I contacted Aidvantage again in writing to address the inaccuracies and deficiencies in the documentation provided and to reiterate my request for a complete accounting and clarification of payment application. \n* * * XX/XX/year> : * * Aidvantage responded in writing, asserting that the documentation already provided included the requested information and encouraging phone-based review rather than providing additional written clarification or corrected documentation. \n\n* * Outstanding Issues : * * Despite these communications, Aidvantage has not resolved the core issues raised in my dispute. Specifically : * Aidvantage has failed to provide a true life-of-loan payment audit that reconciles payments to balance changes. \n* Aidvantage has not clearly documented how payments made prior to XX/XX/year> were applied, including payments exceeding {$900.00}. \n* Aidvantage has not disclosed whether any payments were held in suspense or unapplied. \n* Aidvantage has not confirmed that overpayments were applied directly to principal rather than absorbed through interest allocation or reallocation during the servicer transfer. \n* Aidvantage declined to place my loans into administrative deferral or forbearance with no interest accrual while these discrepancies are investigated, without addressing whether the unresolved discrepancies constitute a servicing error. \n* Aidvantage has not provided electronic copies of all documents mailed to me, despite a written request to do so. \n\nAidvantages reliance on partial documentation and phone-based explanations does not resolve the servicing concerns or provide the transparency required to verify the accuracy of my loan balances and payment history. \n\nI am requesting the CFPBs assistance in requiring Aidvantage to provide a complete and transparent accounting of my loans, properly investigate and correct any servicing errors, ensure accurate loan balances and reporting, and apply appropriate administrative relief while this dispute is unresolved. \n\nThank you for your review and assistance. \n\nSincerely, XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-24T23:37:17.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"40047","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18277917","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-24T23:25:34.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Aidvantages reliance on partial documentation and phone-based explanations does not resolve the servicing concerns or <em>provide</em> the transparency required to verify the accuracy of my loan <em>balances</em> and <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>."]},"sort":[21.820995,"18277917"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18411755","_score":21.778791,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Aidvantage Federal Student Aid Loan Servicing XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX And U.S. Department of Education Federal Student Aid Borrower Advocacy XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  FORMAL REQUEST FOR FULL ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION & INTEREST CAPITALIZATION AUDIT. \nTo Whom It May Concern : I am writing to formally dispute the accuracy of the balance currently reported on my federal student loans and to request a complete forensic accounting and interest capitalization audit, pursuant to : 34 C.F.R. 685 ( federal servicing requirements ) The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) The Department of Educations One-Time IDR Account Adjustment All rules governing lawful interest capitalization Aidvantage currently reports a balance of {$370000.00}. This sharply deviates from the verified original loan principal amounts documented in my official Student Aid Data file. \nXXXX. VERIFIED ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL ( Federal Records ) Undergraduate Borrowing ( XXXX ) : {$19000.00} ( Loans paid in full through consolidation ) Graduate Borrowing ( SCNM XXXX ) : {$180000.00} Breakdown : Subsidized : {$42000.00} Unsubsidized : {$140000.00} XXXX. CURRENT BALANCE ( Federal Records ) Outstanding principal : {$330000.00} Outstanding interest : {$36000.00} Total : {$370000.00} My balance has nearly doubled despite years of attempted repayment, indicating improper interest growth and possible servicing errors. \nXXXX. FORMAL REQUEST FOR COMPLETE ACCOUNTING For each individual loan included in my consolidated account, please provide : Original principal & disbursement dates All interest rates ever applied A full interest accrual ledger Every interest capitalization event, with date, amount, triggering event, regulatory authority Full payment history Full forbearance/deferment history Full status history Written confirmation of COVID-era compliance Screenshots or generic descriptions are insufficient. \nXXXX. BASIS FOR DISPUTE The doubling of my graduate balance is inconsistent with lawful servicing. \nThis inflation appears connected to : repeated forbearance steering, failure to advise me of IDR eligibility, consolidation capitalization errors, improper or undocumented capitalization events, and misclassification of repayment statuses. \nUntil corrected documentation is provided, the reported balance must be classified as : \" Unverified, disputed, and noncompliant for credit reporting. '' XXXX. REQUESTED RESOLUTION After the recount and audit, I am requesting : A. Removal of ALL improperly capitalized interest ( And all interest accrued on that improper capitalization ) B. Recalculation of my principal balance to lawful levels after reversing improper interest. \nXXXX Retroactive application of IDR credits required under the XXXX Account Adjustment. \nXXXX Immediate loan discharge E. Alternative Relief If not yet eligible for discharge : reduce principal, remove excess interest, correct repayment history, reinstate into proper IDR with accurate counts. \nXXXX Credit Reporting Corrections. Any tradeline based on unverified or inflated balances must be corrected or removed under FCRA. \nXXXX Written confirmation of each correction and the updated accurate balance. Please provide a full written response within XXXX  days. \nThank you for your immediate attention. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-02T01:41:12.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"90066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18411755","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2026-01-02T01:34:27.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Need information about your loan balance or loan terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Alternative Relief If not yet eligible for discharge : reduce principal, remove excess interest, correct repayment <em>history</em>, reinstate into proper IDR with <em>accurate</em> counts. \nXXXX Credit Reporting Corrections. Any tradeline based on unverified or inflated <em>balances</em> must be corrected or removed under FCRA. \nXXXX Written <em>confirmation</em> of each correction and the updated <em>accurate</em> <em>balance</em>. Please <em>provide</em> a full written response within XXXX  days. \nThank you for your immediate attention."],"sub_issue":["Need information about your loan <em>balance</em> or loan terms"]},"sort":[21.778791,"18411755"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18131224","_score":21.748457,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am reporting serious servicing errors and misconduct related to my federal XXXX loan account that have made it impossible for me to reliably repay or trust the accuracy of my loan. \n\nMy account contains incorrect personal identifying information, specifically a Social Security number that does not match mine, which raises significant concerns about data integrity and the accuracy of all balances, payments, and records associated with this loan. \n\nIn addition, my loan has been rewritten or modified without my knowledge, consent, or authorization. Repayment terms, balances, and payment information appear to have changed without explanation, documentation, or approval. As a result, balances and payment amounts are incorrect, and I can not verify what I truly owe. \n\nI have been attempting to resolve these issues with my loan servicer since XX/XX/year>, but despite repeated contacts, the servicer continues to state that an account specialist will reach out. No such contact has occurred, and no meaningful investigation or correction has been completed. \n\nBecause my account contains incorrect Social Security information, unauthorized loan modifications, and unresolved balance discrepancies, I do not have confidence that any amount being requested is accurate or valid. I can not reasonably be expected to repay a loan when the underlying account data is demonstrably incorrect and has not been properly investigated or corrected. \n\nI am requesting immediate intervention to : Correct all personal identifying information on my account Reverse any unauthorized loan modifications Conduct a full audit of balances and payment history Provide written confirmation of accurate and corrected loan terms Until these errors are resolved, the account remains unreliable and disputed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T03:19:30.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"54729","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18131224","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","date_received":"2025-12-18T03:14:25.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting immediate intervention to : Correct all personal identifying information on my account Reverse any unauthorized loan modifications Conduct a full <em>audit</em> of <em>balances</em> and <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> <em>Provide</em> written <em>confirmation</em> of <em>accurate</em> and corrected loan terms Until these errors are resolved, the account remains unreliable and disputed."]},"sort":[21.748457,"18131224"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5304944","_score":21.040823,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Please review the remedies sought from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and the lawsuit filed against me XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nPlease review the lien that has been recorded XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI dispute these frivolous and retaliated claims. \n\nTo date Habitat for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to o provide detailed payment history. Failed to credit and post all payments sent. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a postmarked XX/XX/XXXX for a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from Habitat for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding a 60 % unnoticed HOA assessment increase has been imposed for the community. The letter stated that I was to pay XXXX. I did. XX/XX/XXXX I made this payment separate from my mortgage payment and listed that in memo of check. Habitat for XXXX has solely given the audit for XX/XX/XXXX. I did not and have not received the audit from XX/XX/XXXX and request confirmation of mailing from the office. as I can provide every mailing through priority mail tracking. \n\nClosed CFPB complaint XX/XX/XXXX Called XXXX XXXX XXXX who is the Attorney for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the debt collection issues filed against me XX/XX/XXXX to inquire of the balance due. This attorney states he is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. I simply ask for the balance. He refuses to give me the balance due to representation. I state that Im not receiving the documents and past due balances as he states or has sent to representation asked to contact. I dont see any official balance due on the legal lawsuit or lien XXXX \n\nSo that I have this totally accurate, Im being sued for CCR violation that is misleading and vague and contradicts it legality. Not to mention, I now have a lien affixed to my real property record from a debt collector/attorney who refuses to explain or list what I exactly owe.? Not to mention the games my mortgage lender is playing with my RESPA account analysis and lack of explanation of missing funds already paid. Last payment to Mortgage was XX/XX/XXXX with overpayment. \n\nMy notice of XXXX sent today XX/XX/XXXX is attached for review as well. \n\nTo : Habitat for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Tx XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Tx XXXX Re : Error Resolution Notice under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 Mortgage Loan Number : XXXX I am writing to request correction of the error ( s ) described below in regard to the mortgage on my property at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tx XXXX I am requesting full homeowner mortgage payment history from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Please include disbursement amounts into principal and escrow. \nPlease provide all disbursements and their paid history in itemized format from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\nPayment Errors : Your company rejected the full payment Of XXXX made on XX/XX/XXXX. This payment was a refund issued by a cancelled insurance payment. Your company endorsed this check XX/XX/XXXX. Your company did not confirm payment until XX/XX/XXXX after XX/XX/XXXX Audit sent out. \n\nYour company has failed to provide a written receipt of Insurance payment from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from a cancelled policy payment the year prior. XXXX You failed to respond to my written request for payment confirmation XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nYour company failed to appropriately credit the payment ( s ) made for the following date ( s ) XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX to both escrow and principal account as directed. \n\nYour company failed to provide ALL payment history and disbursements made from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX from escrow account during audit review requested prior. \n\nPayments sent via priority mail : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX check # XXXX Cashiers check paid in person to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX # XXXX replaced check # XXXX sent priority mail. \n\n\nPayments sent via bank draft XX/XX/XXXX check # XXXX for HOA community increase 60 % fee. \n\nEscrow Errors : On XX/XX/XXXX I received the annual escrow audit two months past due and filled with errors. The monthly payment column was off with the payment {$390.00} and not the accurate payment of {$410.00} resulting in a negative deficiency of my paid escrow funds. \n\nThe previous years audit XXXX will also shout this same pattern. \n\nYour company did not properly credit the payment that I made on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of XXXX This payment should have been credited to : XXXX XXXX escrow account. \n\nI requested in person meeting. During that ZOOM meeting with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX you gave no documents. Your company assured that the matter would be corrected and sent timely for XX/XX/XXXX payment due. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contacted this office to inform them that I had not received my audit as originally told. I was told by XXXX XXXX the completed audit was sent XX/XX/XXXX via mail. \n\nI have not received such document. Please provide mailing details of your action. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I sent another email to follow up and request the audit to be sent via email with attachments. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I received a response from this XXXX XXXX for an audit completed XX/XX/XXXX. Again this audit is filled with errors. It does not credit my payments appropriately. This company is extending dates for audits and not appropriately crediting the audit years paid. This is causing inaccurate payment dates and amounts paid. This is causing a deficit and miscalculation of ACTUAL PAID AMOUNTS. \n\n\nI believe that I am entitled to a return of paid and misallocated funds in my escrow account and principal account.My escrow account is deficit over {$2000.00}. You have not been able to provide any written explanation of these missing funds. Per my records. My principal account payoff date is incorrect. Per my records. \n\nPrevious Annual review actions not corrected : On XX/XX/XXXX this company conducted a second review as I disagreed with my XXXX audit. The column again does not reflect actual payments to escrow account resulting in deficit. \n\nIf you need to contact me, I can be reached in WRITING only at : Please provide your acknowledgment and any corresponding documents with CMRR to ensure I have received. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tx XXXX Mortgage Holder to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-10T08:01:27.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"77066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5304944","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.","date_received":"2022-03-10T01:39:08.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Your company failed to <em>provide</em> ALL <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> and disbursements made from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX from escrow account during <em>audit</em> review requested prior."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[21.040823,"5304944"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17752434","_score":20.51367,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is furnishing inaccurate, incomplete, and contradictory information to consumer reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 607 ( b ), 609, 611, and 623. The agency is reporting incorrect delinquency levels, missing payment history, contradictory account status fields, an unverified arrears balance, and a false monthly payment amount. The agency has failed to provide any verification after multiple requests. \n\nDETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM I have a child support account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX under account number XXXX. The information currently appearing on my credit report is not accurate, not consistent, and not verifiable, and it directly conflicts with the more detailed reporting provided earlier by the same agency. \n\nThe following major discrepancies exist : 1. Incorrect Delinquency Reporting The report shows 180 days past due for XX/XX/XXXX, but my detailed payment history from the same agency only includes 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-day delinquency codes. Nowhere in the official record do they report 180 days. \nThis is false and misleading data, violating FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\n2. Contradictory Account Status The agency is simultaneously reporting : Paid off Balance : {$49000.00} Past due : {$49000.00} Account status : Open A child support account can not be both paid off and {$49000.00} past due and still be listed as open. This is contradictory, inaccurate, and misleading to lenders. \n\n3. Incorrect Monthly Payment Reporting The credit report lists $ 0 monthly payment, which is impossible for a child support order. This is incomplete and misleading information, violating FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).\n\n4. Missing and Incomplete Payment History Entire months are listed as ( data unavailable ), even though child support reporting requires continuous monthly reporting. This violates FCRA obligation to ensure complete information. \n\n5. Incorrect Last Payment Date The report lists XX/XX/XXXX as the last payment. \nHowever, three subsequent months ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) are marked OK on my detailed agency reporting. \nThese two can not both be correct, proving ledger and reporting errors.\n\n6. No Original Balance, No Ledger, No Audit Child support obligations require reporting : original obligation amount arrears calculation payment ledger interest computation The agency reported no original balance and has not provided any underlying documentation to support the {$49000.00} figure despite multiple requests for verification. This violates FCRA 609 and 611.\n\n7. Agency Failed to Provide Verification Despite my dispute and request for : a full child support ledger arrears breakdown payment audit documentation supporting delinquency levels the agency failed to provide ANY verification, violating FCRA 609 and 611.\n\n8. Furnishing Conflicting Data to Different Credit Bureaus The detailed 81-month history I obtained earlier contradicts the simplified tradeline now reporting. This suggests the agency is furnishing inconsistent data across bureaus, which is a clear violation of Metro-2 guidelines and FCRA accuracy requirements.\n\nCONSUMER IMPACT These inaccuracies : artificially inflate my delinquency misrepresent my payment history damage my credit score interfere with housing and employment opportunities present a false arrears picture WHAT I AM REQUESTING I am requesting : A full investigation under FCRA 611 A co\nmplete child support payment ledger A complete arrears audit with calculations Correction or deletion of : the 180-day delinquency incorrect past due amounts contradictory status fields false XXXX XXXX monthly payment missing months Written confirmation from XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-04T15:32:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90063","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17752434","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-04T15:17:59.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>payment</em> missing months Written <em>confirmation</em> from XXXX XXXX XXXX"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[20.51367,"17752434"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15952543","_score":19.526796,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am attempting to resolve my auto loan with Westlake Financial Services ( Acct # XXXX ). I have been making payments and requesting written confirmation of ( 1 ) my current status/balance, ( 2 ) payments received ( dates/amounts ), and ( 3 ) any settlement/arrangement terms discussed. Westlake representatives have repeatedly told me they do not issue written settlement confirmations prior to payment, and they directed me to pay via XXXX per their in-app Payoff Policy. I need written verification for my records and for an employment suitability review, but I have been unable to obtain a simple status/payment letter or a clear written policy statement. \n\n\n\n\n\nTimeline ( key dates & amounts ) XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$1100.00} ( prior payment ; posted ). \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$250.00} ( posted by agent ). \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$500.00} via XXXX ( Ref XXXX ) ; posted. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$400.00} ( posted ; shown in app history ). \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$350.00} via XXXX ( Ref XXXX ) ; posted. \nMultiple calls to ( XXXX ) XXXX and messages through the Westlake app/message center requesting a written status/payment verification or a settlement letter. I was told Westlake does not provide letters before receipt of payoff funds. \n\n\n\n\nWestlakes app XXXX XXXX states payoff quotes are only good through a date and that accounts are released after full remittance and final audit ; it also lists XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ) as an approved channel. I have followed these instructions and retained receipts and screenshots showing payments posted. \n\n\n\n\n\nWhat I believe is wrong Westlake is refusing to provide basic written documentation of my current account status and payments received, despite my good-faith payments and requests.\n\nIt is unclear whether Westlake will provide any written settlement/arrangement terms in advance, or a policy statement confirming they do not give settlement agreements leaving me without standard written confirmation for my records and for verification needs. \nI want to ensure accurate, timely credit reporting reflecting payments and any ultimate settlement/payoff.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-15T03:37:13.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"27406","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15952543","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Westlake Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-09-15T03:30:38.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Denied request to lower payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have been making <em>payments</em> and requesting written <em>confirmation</em> of ( 1 ) my current status/<em>balance</em>, ( 2 ) <em>payments</em> received ( dates/amounts ), and ( 3 ) any settlement/arrangement terms discussed. Westlake representatives have repeatedly told me they do not issue written settlement <em>confirmations</em> prior to <em>payment</em>, and they directed me to pay via XXXX per their in-app Payoff Policy."]},"sort":[19.526796,"15952543"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18812400","_score":19.375916,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint against Klarna for improper billing, duplicate charges, and an incorrect repayment balance related to a XXXX XXXX purchase that I have already paid. \n\nSummary of the Issue Klarna charged my account multiple times for the same XXXX XXXX transaction and then incorrectly placed the account into a repayment plan despite substantial payments already being made. Klarnas internal totals do not accurately reflect my payment history and result in overbilling.\n\nDocumented Payments and Charges ( Evidence Attached ) : 1. Klarna charged five ( 5 ) separate transactions of {$150.00} to my account for Klarna XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX, OH ), totaling {$770.00}, despite this being a single purchase. \nXXXX. Klarna then moved the account into a repayment plan showing a balance of {$920.00}, even though significant payments had already been collected. \nXXXX. Additional repayment plan payments were withdrawn : XXXX payment : {$51.00} ( Paid XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX payment : {$51.00} ( Paid XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX payment : {$51.00} ( Paid XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX. Klarnas own system reflects a confusing and contradictory entry stating Paid in XX/XX/year> : {$980.00}, which does not align with the repayment balance or the actual payment history. \n\nDespite these payments, Klarna continues to reflect an outstanding balance and has failed to reconcile the account correctly. \n\nActions Taken I contacted Klarna directly to resolve this matter. However, the billing errors remain unresolved, and I continue to be charged improperly. \n\nRequested Resolution I am requesting that Klarna be required to : 1. Conduct a full audit and correction of my account.\n\n2. Remove the improper repayment balance and any duplicate charges.\n\n3. Refund all amounts charged beyond the original agreed purchase price. \nXXXX. Provide written confirmation that my account reflects a XXXX balance. \nXXXX. Confirm that no negative credit reporting has occurred or will occur due to this billing error. \n\nSupporting documentation, including transaction history and repayment screenshots, is attached. \n\nThank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.am filing a formal complaint regarding Klarnas failure to correct a known billing and system error. \n\nI paid my Klarna balance related to a Vivid Seats purchase in full and submitted proof of payment. Despite this, Klarna incorrectly placed the account into a repayment plan and continued to reflect a balance due. \n\nAfter more than 100 days of repeated contacts via chat, email, and phone, a Klarna specialist confirmed in writing that I have no active purchases and should not see any further charges. However, my account still displays a balance due.\n\nThis is now a confirmed system/accounting error that Klarna has failed to correct. I am requesting : Immediate correction of the account balance to {$0.00} Written confirmation that no late fees or penalties are valid Assurance that no adverse reporting has occurred or will occur Klarna has acknowledged the issue but has not resolved it. \n\nAttach : Proof of payment Screenshots showing : Klarna confirming no active purchases Account still showing a balance","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-18T05:40:41.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94607","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18812400","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Klarna AB","date_received":"2026-01-18T05:30:07.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Provide</em> written <em>confirmation</em> that my account reflects a XXXX <em>balance</em>. \nXXXX. Confirm that no negative credit reporting has occurred or will occur due to this billing error. \n\nSupporting documentation, including transaction <em>history</em> and repayment screenshots, is attached. \n\nThank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.am filing a formal complaint regarding Klarnas failure to correct a known billing and system error."]},"sort":[19.375916,"18812400"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13498650","_score":18.975595,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally dispute a miscalculation in my student loan account and to raise serious concerns about potential violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nI have noticed discrepancies in the way my payments have been applied and reported by XXXX These miscalculations have resulted in an inaccurate balance and, in some cases, negative credit reporting that is both misleading and damaging.\n\nAs a consumer, I am entitled under the FCRA to accurate and fair credit reporting. If you have furnished incorrect information to the credit bureaus as a result of these errors, it constitutes a violation of the FCRA, including but not limited to : FCRA 623 : Furnishers of information must provid\ne accurate information and correct any errors they discover. \nFCRA 611 : Consumers have the right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit reports, and the furnisher must investigate.\n\nI am requesting the following actions be taken immediately : A full audit of my loan payment history and account records.\n\nWritten clarification explaining how payments have been applied and any adjustments made.\n\nCorrection of any inaccurate information reported to the credit bureaus.\n\nWritten confirmation that any FCRA violations have been remedied and that my credit report reflects accurate information.\n\nI am also requesting a copy of any communication XXXX has had with t\n\nhe credit bureaus regarding my account. Please consider this a formal dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If I do not receive a satisfactory resolution within 30 days, I will consider taking further action, including filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and considering legal counsel for damages resulting from inaccurate credit reporting and financial harm. Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide your response in writing to the address listed above.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-15T16:06:06.000Z","issue":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19901","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13498650","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EdFinancial Services","date_received":"2025-05-14T02:34:27.000Z","state":"DE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received unwanted marketing or advertising"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting the following actions be taken immediately : A full <em>audit</em> of my loan <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> and account records.\n\nWritten clarification explaining how <em>payments</em> have been applied and any adjustments made.\n\nCorrection of any inaccurate information reported to the credit bureaus.\n\nWritten <em>confirmation</em> that any FCRA violations have been remedied and that my credit report reflects <em>accurate</em> information."]},"sort":[18.975595,"13498650"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11759036","_score":18.815895,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Subject : Request for Full Compliance Sweep of Non-Compliant Debt Collectors Dear Experian Dispute Department, I am writing to formally request a review and compliance audit of all accounts reported on my credit file to ensure full adherence to Metro 2 standards. As you are aware, Metro 2 compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is accurate, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account balances, payment history, status, and dates, must be accurate and verifiable.\n\n2. Validation of Accounts : All debt collectors reporting accounts to my file must provide full validation of the debts, including proper documentation to substantiate the claims.\n\n3. Compliance with the FCRA : Any account that fails to meet FCRA requirements or Metro 2 standards should be removed from my credit file immediately.\n\nI believe some of the accounts reported by debt collectors may not meet these standards. In particular, please ensure that : All accounts have accurate and updated information.\n\nAccounts are reported in the correct status, including any that may be beyond the statute of limitations.\n\nAny unverifiable accounts are promptly removed.\n\nPlease provide me with a detailed summary of the actions taken, including confirmation of compliance for all accounts and notification of any deletions or corrections made.\n\nI trust that Experian will handle this request promptly and in accordance with its legal obligations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly should you require additional information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T18:15:28.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"46322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11759036","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-24T17:55:47.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As you are aware, Metro 2 compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is <em>accurate</em>, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account <em>balances</em>, <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>, status, and dates, must be <em>accurate</em> and verifiable.\n\n2."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[18.815895,"11759036"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11757090","_score":18.258701,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Subject : Request for Full Compliance Sweep of Non-Compliant Debt Collectors DearXX/XX/XXXXDispute Department, I am writing to formally request a review and compliance audit of all accounts reported on my credit file to ensure full adherence to Metro 2 standards. As you are aware, Metro 2 compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is accurate, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account balances, payment history, status, and dates, must be accurate and verifiable.\n\n2. Validation of Accounts : All debt collectors reporting accounts to my file must provide full validation of the debts, including proper documentation to substantiate the claims.\n\n3. Compliance with the FCRA : Any account that fails to meet FCRA requirements or Metro 2 standards should be removed from my credit file immediately.\n\nI believe some of the accounts reported by debt collectors may not meet these standards. In particular, please ensure that : All accounts have accurate and updated information.\n\nAccounts are reported in the correct status, including any that may be beyond the statute of limitations.\n\nAny unverifiable accounts are promptly removed.\n\nPlease provide me with a detailed summary of the actions taken, including confirmation of compliance for all accounts and notification of any deletions or corrections made. \n\nI trust that XXXX will handle this request promptly and in accordance with its legal obligations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly should you require additional information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T18:15:40.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"46322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11757090","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2025-01-24T18:15:38.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As you are aware, Metro 2 compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is <em>accurate</em>, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account <em>balances</em>, <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>, status, and dates, must be <em>accurate</em> and verifiable.\n\n2."]},"sort":[18.258701,"11757090"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11755905","_score":18.25659,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/scrub>/2025 Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Subject : Request for Full Compliance Sweep of Non-Compliant Debt Collectors Dear Experian Dispute Department, I am writing to formally request a review and compliance audit of all accounts reported on my credit file to ensure full adherence to Metro 2 standards. As you are aware, Metro 2 compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is accurate, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account balances, payment history, status, and dates, must be accurate and verifiable.\n\n2. Validation of Accounts : All debt collectors reporting accounts to my file must provide full validation of the debts, including proper documentation to substantiate the claims.\n\n3. Compliance with the FCRA : Any account that fails to meet FCRA requirements or Metro 2 standards should be removed from my credit file immediately.\n\nI believe some of the accounts reported by debt collectors may not meet these standards. In particular, please ensure that : All accounts have accurate and updated information.\n\nAccounts are reported in the correct status, including any that may be beyond the statute of limitations.\n\nAny unverifiable accounts are promptly removed.\n\nPlease provide me with a detailed summary of the actions taken, including confirmation of compliance for all accounts and notification of any deletions or corrections made.\n\nI trust that Experian will handle this request promptly and in accordance with its legal obligations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly should you require additional information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T18:32:51.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"46410","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11755905","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-24T18:18:49.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As you are aware, Metro 2 compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is <em>accurate</em>, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account <em>balances</em>, <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>, status, and dates, must be <em>accurate</em> and verifiable.\n\n2."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[18.25659,"11755905"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11757704","_score":18.221199,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX Subject : Request for Full Compliance Sweep of Non-Compliant Debt XXXX Dear Experian Dispute Department, I am writing to formally request a review and compliance audit of all accounts reported on my credit file to ensure full adherence to XXXX XXXX standards. As you are aware, XXXX XXXX compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is accurate, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account balances, payment history, status, and dates, must be accurate and verifiable.\n\n2. Validation of Accounts : All debt collectors reporting accounts to my file must provide full validation of the debts, including proper documentation to substantiate the claims.\n\n3. Compliance with the FCRA : Any account that fails to meet FCRA requirements or XXXX XXXX standards should be removed from my credit file immediately. \n\n\n\nI believe some of the accounts reported by debt collectors may not meet these standards. In particular, please ensure that : All accounts have accurate and updated information. \n\nAccounts are reported in the correct status, including any that XXXX be beyond the statute of limitations. \n\nAny unverifiable accounts are promptly removed. \n\n\nPlease provide me with a detailed summary of the actions taken, including confirmation of compliance for all accounts and notification of any deletions or corrections made. \n\nI trust that XXXX will handle this request promptly and in accordance with its legal obligations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly should you require additional information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-24T18:33:03.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"46410","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11757704","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OneMain Finance Corporation","date_received":"2025-01-24T18:33:01.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As you are aware, XXXX XXXX compliance is crucial for ensuring that all information reported to the credit bureaus is <em>accurate</em>, complete, and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nSpecifically, I am requesting a full sweep of all reported accounts to verify that the following standards are met for each tradeline : 1. Accuracy : All reported information, including account <em>balances</em>, <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>, status, and dates, must be <em>accurate</em> and verifiable.\n\n2."]},"sort":[18.221199,"11757704"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4337291","_score":18.122976,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"during the entirety of the loan, the statements that the company provided me and had online do not match the audit results of the loan when I requested a payoff. They stated that there was an added XXXX dollars +- that I needed to pay. It took them several weeks to get me my payoff amount and that was only due to numerous attempts to contact them. \n\nIf the numbers that I was given had been accurate this wouldn't be an issue but they were not. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I went online and received the principal balance amount of {$14000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX I added {$100.00} to that amount to cover any incidentals and made an electronic payment in the full amount of {$15000.00}, which should have been my final payoff, plus or minus a few dollars. For the next few weeks I attempted to get confirmation that my loan was paid off, or what small amount would be due. Nobody could find my account. I finally spoke with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX who put me through to Miss XXXX at XXXX XXXX. She then told me Id get my payoff within one day. I then went online the next day and found my payoff principal had been increased by {$2700.00}, retroactively to XX/XX/XXXX. ( See attached Payment History Print Preview ) additional {$2700.00} in principal was added to my account on XX/XX/XXXX, when it was not there on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, why was the date posted to my account XX/XX/XXXX, when this additional principal wasnt added to my account until XX/XX/XXXX? \n\nMy total sum of payments in XXXX total {$16000.00}. My account overview shows a total Year-to-date payments of {$13000.00}. ( See the attached Account Overview {$13000.00} and Attached Payment History {$16000.00} ). The difference is $ XXXXalmost the exact difference in what my payoff should be - {$100.00} or so and what you are reporting it to be - {$3200.00}. \n\n\nhere is the email chain that has lead to this. newest first. I have removed my email address and phone numbers and account numbers from this section. \n\n\nDear Valued Customer Thank you for contacting us. \n\nWe have requested a supervisor callback. You may also contact our office at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nPlease feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions. \n\nSincerely, Account Servicing Support XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ XXXX. \n\n\n\n-- -- -Original Message -- -- - From : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Monday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX To : AccountServicing MyLoanCare Subject : my loan care, ( Ticket # XXXX ) IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company. \nI sent an email last Thursday that hasnt been answered yet. I will give you till end of business tomorrow to contact me. \nXXXX XXXX From : AccountServicing MyLoanCare XXXX Sent : Friday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  To : XXXX XXXX > Subject : RE : my loan care, ( Ticket # XXXX ) This message was sent securely using XXXX Dear Valued Customer Thank you for contacting us. \n\nYour request is forwarded to appropriate department for processing. \n\nPlease feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions. \n\nSincerely, Account Servicing Support XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ XXXX. \n\n\n\n\n-- -- -Original Message -- -- - From : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  To : AccountServicing MyLoanCare Subject : my loan care, ( Ticket # XXXX ) IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company. \nDear account servicing department, Not a single number besides the dates matches from what your audit states to what your payment history is showing online or in any of the statements that you sent through the mail to my house. This means that every periodic statement that you have sent over the course of the loan to me has been issued with incorrect information. \nAs per 1026.41 Periodic statements for residential mortgage loans In short this law states. The federal periodic statement rule requires mortgage lenders and servicers to provide homeowners with prompt, regular, and accurate information about their mortgage loans. \nYou were required to provide an accurate representation of the amount due, payments made, and an accurate history of what each payment was applied to. As it currently stands I will need to speak with your company in regards to how your company wants to handle this issue. Please have a manager or supervisor call me at XXXX or email me at XXXX with a resolution to this problem. \n\nXXXX XXXX From : AccountServicing MyLoanCare XXXX Sent : Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  To : XXXX XXXX Subject : RE : my loan care, ( Ticket # XXXX ) This message was sent securely using XXXX  Dear Valued Customer Thank you for contacting us. \n\nWe have completed an audit as stated in the previous email. Attaching the letters and the spread sheet for your convenience. \n\nPlease feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions. \n\nSincerely, Account Servicing Support XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ XXXX. \n\n\n\n\n-- -- -Original Message -- -- - From : XXXX XXXX XXXX Sent : Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX To : AccountServicing MyLoanCare Subject : my loan care, ( Ticket # XXXX ) IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company. \nDear Account Servicing Department, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my last statement showed an amount of {$14000.00} as the principle balance, I paid {$15000.00} and now it shows {$2800.00} as the principle balance. I have spoken with the account owner who received a check from you dated XX/XX/XXXX for {$14000.00}, with an attachment that stated the new balance being {$160.00}. Which is what I was showing before the mysterious {$2800.00} showed up. I will require the audit # s that total the {$2800.00} in detail. Lastly I would like to know If I am to pay the remaining {$2800.00} will this payment be going to the Lienholders aka XXXX XXXX? \nThank you in advance for your assistance. Please dont hesitate to call, text or email me, XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX,, if I can provide any additional information or be of additional service. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX From : AccountServicing MyLoanCare XXXX Sent : Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : RE : my loan care ( Ticket # XXXX ) CAUTION : This email originated outside of XXXX. DO NOT CLICK any links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. \nThis message was sent securely using XXXX  Dear Valued Customer Thank you for contacting us.\n\nLoancare completed an audit on this account. An audit had to be completed to adjust payments because payments were applied towards principal before paying the interest current. Attached you will find information pertaining to the audit. If you have any questions, please contact our office at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nPlease feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions. \n\nSincerely, Account Servicing Support XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ XXXX. \n\n\n\n-- -- -Original Message -- -- - From : XXXX XXXX [ mailto : XXXX ] Sent : Monday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  To : AccountServicing MyLoanCare Subject : my loan care IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company. \n\nDear Payoff Department, On XX/XX/XXXX I went online and received the principal balance amount of {$14000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX I added {$100.00} to that amount to cover any incidentals and made an electronic payment in the full amount of {$15000.00}, which should have been my final payoff, plus or minus a few dollars. For the next few weeks I attempted to get confirmation that my loan was paid off, or what small amount would be due. Nobody could find my account. I finally spoke with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX who put me through to Miss XXXX at XXXX XXXX. She then told me Id get my payoff within one day. I then went online the next day and found my payoff principal had been increased by {$2700.00}, retroactively to XX/XX/XXXX. ( See attached Payment History Print Preview ) Numerous attempts at reaching Miss XXXX have been unsuccessful. I am reaching out to you for assistance. \n\nI would appreciate an explanation as to how an additional {$2700.00} in principal was added to my account on XX/XX/XXXX, when it was not there on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, why was the date posted to my account XX/XX/XXXX, when this additional principal wasnt added to my account until XX/XX/XXXX? \n\nMy second question that needs an explanation is this : My total sum of payments in XXXX total {$16000.00}. My account overview shows a total Year-to-date payments of {$13000.00}. ( See the attached Account Overview {$13000.00} and Attached Payment History {$16000.00} ). The difference is $ XXXXalmost the exact difference in what my payoff should be - {$100.00} or so and what you are reporting it to be - {$3200.00}. \n\nId like this inflated payoff of {$3200.00} corrected immediately and the correct amount that I owe provided to me so I can make the final payoff amount now. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please dont hesitate to call, text or email me, 24/7 at XXXX XXXX XXXX, or, if I can provide any additional information or be of additional service. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-12T14:46:19.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"85203","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4337291","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LoanCare, LLC","date_received":"2021-04-29T18:19:02.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The federal periodic statement rule requires mortgage lenders and servicers to <em>provide</em> homeowners with prompt, regular, and <em>accurate</em> information about their mortgage loans. \nYou were required to <em>provide</em> an <em>accurate</em> representation of the amount due, <em>payments</em> made, and an <em>accurate</em> <em>history</em> of what each <em>payment</em> was applied to. As it currently stands I will need to speak with your company in regards to how your company wants to handle this issue."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[18.122976,"4337291"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17523396","_score":16.820728,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"What happened is that multiple companies, furnishers, and credit reporting agencies have continued to report numerous derogatory, inaccurate, unverified, and incomplete accounts on my credit file despite my repeated attempts to dispute, correct, or obtain proper validation and documentation. I followed the appropriate dispute procedures and provided detailed notices requesting verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), but the companies either ignored the request, failed to provide legally required documentation, or conducted superficial reinvestigations that did not meet the standards of FCRA 602A, 607 ( b ), and 611 ( a ).\n\nThere are several derogatory accounts being reported, including charge-offs, collections, late-payment histories, and negative statuses from multiple furnishers. These include accounts allegedly belonging to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, student loan servicers, and other furnishers who continue reporting even though none of the entities have provided the required validation documents or proof of accuracy. \n\nThe first problem is that the credit bureaus continue to accept and publish information that is unverified and unsupported by proper documentation. When I disputed the accounts, the credit bureaus used automated systems such as e-Oscar, which only facilitate automated XXXX  exchanges with the furnisher. This method does not satisfy the legal requirement for a reasonable reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), the bureaus are required to conduct an independent reinvestigation and verify each detail of the disputed information. Instead of reviewing original documentation, signed applications, promissory notes, or actual contracts, the bureaus simply relied on the furnishers electronic confirmation, even when the furnisher failed to provide legally required documentation.\n\nThe next issue arises from the furnishers themselves. Many of these companies are reporting derogatory accounts that include charge-off amounts, late-payment histories, collection balances, past-due statuses, and negative comments that are not supported by any physical contract or legal instrument. When a consumer disputes an account, furnishers are required under FCRA 623 to conduct their own investigation and verify the accuracy of the information before continuing to report it. Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated confirmations, or failed to provide any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. \n\nFor example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-payment histories, charge-offs, and closed statuses. However, when I disputed these accounts and requested original signed contracts, applications, or any proof of ownership, the furnisher did not provide any legally sufficient document. No signed application or evidence confirming that the account belongs to me was produced. Instead, the furnisher merely sent an electronic confirmation to the credit bureau through e-Oscar. The bureau then relied solely on that confirmation without further verification, which violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). \n\nAnother example includes accounts associated with XXXX  or XXXX XXXX, which are reporting late-payment histories and derogatory statuses but have not provided any contract or proof validating the account. The reported {$27.00} delinquency and multiple late-payment entries were disputed, yet the furnisher did not supply any signed agreement or proof that the account was legitimate. Under the FCRA, a furnisher can not continue reporting an account that can not be verified. The continued reporting, without documentation, demonstrates a failure to follow federal law. \n\nXXXX XXXX is reporting a collection amount of approximately {$3000.00}, including 90-day late notations across multiple months. This information is highly damaging and appears inconsistent. When I disputed this account, I requested proof of the debt, chain of assignment documents, bill of sale, and verification showing how XXXX XXXX obtained the account. None of these documents were provided. The furnisher failed to demonstrate that it had legal ownership of the account, nor did it provide any proof showing the accuracy of the balance or the dates of delinquency. Without proper documentation, this account can not be verified and should not be reported. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is reporting a derogatory collection in the approximate amount of {$970.00}. This account includes nearly 29 notations of 90-day delinquency. Again, as with the other accounts, I requested documentation showing the origin of the account, chain of custody documents proving assignment or purchase, and validation of the balance. No documents were provided to confirm the accuracy of the reporting. Continuing to report inconsistent, unverified, or incomplete information violates FCRA 602A and 607 ( b ), which mandate that all reporting must be accurate and capable of being verified. \n\nOther furnishers such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reporting accounts that include charge-offs, late payments, and collection statuses. These accounts were disputed, and I specifically asked for original contracts, billing statements, records of transactions, and any documentation proving the existence of the alleged debt. None of the furnishers provided the requested documentation. The bureaus still marked the disputes as verified, which indicates that they did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by federal law. \n\nThere is also reporting from a state agency foXXXX XXXX XXXX  with a derogatory balance of approximately {$730.00}. This type of reporting requires official court orders, payment histories, and proper legal documentation. When this information was requested, the furnisher did not provide any of the required records. Reporting government-related debts must be handled with accuracy and complete documentation. Reporting incomplete or unverified data is a severe violation of 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, which requires maximum possible accuracy.\n\nAdditionally, student loan servicers, including DeptEd, XXXX, and XXXX, are reporting late payments or negative statuses that appear inconsistent with the payment history. I requested the master promissory note, transfer documents, and payment history records. These records were not provided, and the reporting continues despite a lack of verification. Continued reporting of student loan accounts without providing required legal documentation violates federal law. \n\nEach of these accounts contains inaccuracies, incomplete data, or missing documentation. Despite disputes, no furnisher or bureau has provided the information required to verify them. \n\nThe next issue involves the reinvestigation process. The disputes were handled improperly because the credit bureaus used automated systems instead of performing a real investigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), when a consumer disputes an account, the bureau must conduct an independent reinvestigation. However, the bureaus rely exclusively on the e-Oscar system, which only gives the furnisher a short code or reason and allows them to respond with a generic electronic code. No original documentation is exchanged. No evidence is reviewed. No contract, application, promissory note, or billing statement is analyzed. The bureaus essentially defer the investigation to the furnisher, which is not allowed under the statute.\n\nWhen I requested a Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), none of the bureaus provided a legally sufficient explanation. Instead, they provided generic statements claiming they verified the account with the furnisher, which is not an acceptable response. The law requires disclosure of the exact method, including the person contacted, the records reviewed, and the system used. The bureaus failed to provide this.\n\nI also requested an audit trail for each account, including timestamps, user IDs, system logs, and records of every update or verification. These records were not provided, even though they are necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal law.\n\nMany of the derogatory accounts remain on my report even though the companies did not validate them. Some accounts contain information that is internally inconsistent such as : conflicting dates duplicate entries varying balances inconsistent delinquency history accounts marked closed but with ongoing derogatory reporting collection balances that do not match the original creditors amounts These inconsistencies alone demonstrate that the accounts have not been properly verified.\n\nSome furnishers appear to have violated FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) because they failed to mark the account as disputed by consumer after being notified. This is a clear violation and creates misleading impressions to lenders.\n\nIn many cases, the bureaus closed my disputes prematurely or did not provide any explanation of how the reinvestigation was conducted. This failure to provide transparency violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). In addition, the bureaus did not justify why the accounts continued to be reported despite not providing the requested documentation.\n\nIn summary, all of the following problems occurred : Furnishers continued reporting information without verifying accuracy.\n\nThe credit bureaus conducted incomplete, automated, and unreasonable reinvestigations.\n\nThe bureaus did not provide a proper Method of Verification when requested.\n\nNo original signed contracts, agreements, or legal documents were supplied to validate the accounts.\n\nNo chain-of-custody documentation was provided for collection accounts.\n\nNo audit trails or system logs were provided.\n\nDisputed accounts were not always marked as disputed.\n\nSeveral accounts contain inconsistent, outdated, inaccurate, or conflicting information.\n\nThe bureaus continued reporting information that violates the FCRA 's accuracy and completeness requirements.\n\nSome furnishers failed to respond to disputes at all, yet the bureaus did not delete the unverifiable accounts.\n\nI am seeking assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because I have exhausted all reasonable efforts to work directly with the companies involved. The accounts remain unverified, incomplete, and inaccurately reported. Under FCRA 602A, consumers deserve accurate, fair, and privacy-respecting credit reporting. The companies involved have not fulfilled these obligations, and their actions have negatively affected my creditworthiness, reputation, and ability to obtain fair credit opportunities.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB intervene and require the companies to : provide full documentation proving the accuracy of each disputed account, including original contracts and legal agreements provide detailed verification methods correct or delete any information that can not be legally verified conduct a lawful, thorough, and independent reinvestigation update all credit bureaus with corrected or deleted data ensure that all furnishers comply with federal law and furnish complete, accurate, and verifiable data Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this matter and ensuring that the companies involved comply with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T19:01:52.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63366","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17523396","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-26T18:59:01.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated <em>confirmations</em>, or failed to <em>provide</em> any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. \n\nFor example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-<em>payment</em> <em>histories</em>, charge-offs, and closed statuses."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[16.820728,"17523396"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17522850","_score":16.811237,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"What happened is that multiple companies, furnishers, and credit reporting agencies have continued to report numerous derogatory, inaccurate, unverified, and incomplete accounts on my credit file despite my repeated attempts to dispute, correct, or obtain proper validation and documentation. I followed the appropriate dispute procedures and provided detailed notices requesting verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), but the companies either ignored the request, failed to provide legally required documentation, or conducted superficial reinvestigations that did not meet the standards of FCRA 602A, 607 ( b ), and 611 ( a ).\n\nThere are several derogatory accounts being reported, including charge-offs, collections, late-payment histories, and negative statuses from multiple furnishers. These include accounts allegedly belonging to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, student loan servicers, and other furnishers who continue reporting even though none of the entities have provided the required validation documents or proof of accuracy. \n\nThe first problem is that the credit bureaus continue to accept and publish information that is unverified and unsupported by proper documentation. When I disputed the accounts, the credit bureaus used automated systems such as e-Oscar, which only facilitate automated XXXX  exchanges with the furnisher. This method does not satisfy the legal requirement for a reasonable reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), the bureaus are required to conduct an independent reinvestigation and verify each detail of the disputed information. Instead of reviewing original documentation, signed applications, promissory notes, or actual contracts, the bureaus simply relied on the furnishers electronic confirmation, even when the furnisher failed to provide legally required documentation.\n\nThe next issue arises from the furnishers themselves. Many of these companies are reporting derogatory accounts that include charge-off amounts, late-payment histories, collection balances, past-due statuses, and negative comments that are not supported by any physical contract or legal instrument. When a consumer disputes an account, furnishers are required under FCRA 623 to conduct their own investigation and verify the accuracy of the information before continuing to report it. Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated confirmations, or failed to provide any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. \n\nFor example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-payment histories, charge-offs, and closed statuses. However, when I disputed these accounts and requested original signed contracts, applications, or any proof of ownership, the furnisher did not provide any legally sufficient document. No signed application or evidence confirming that the account belongs to me was produced. Instead, the furnisher merely sent an electronic confirmation to the credit bureau through e-Oscar. The bureau then relied solely on that confirmation without further verification, which violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). \n\nAnother example includes accounts associated with XXXX  or XXXX XXXX, which are reporting late-payment histories and derogatory statuses but have not provided any contract or proof validating the account. The reported {$27.00} delinquency and multiple late-payment entries were disputed, yet the furnisher did not supply any signed agreement or proof that the account was legitimate. Under the FCRA, a furnisher can not continue reporting an account that can not be verified. The continued reporting, without documentation, demonstrates a failure to follow federal law. \n\nXXXX XXXX is reporting a collection amount of approximately {$3000.00}, including 90-day late notations across multiple months. This information is highly damaging and appears inconsistent. When I disputed this account, I requested proof of the debt, chain of assignment documents, bill of sale, and verification showing how XXXX XXXX obtained the account. None of these documents were provided. The furnisher failed to demonstrate that it had legal ownership of the account, nor did it provide any proof showing the accuracy of the balance or the dates of delinquency. Without proper documentation, this account can not be verified and should not be reported. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is reporting a derogatory collection in the approximate amount of {$970.00}. This account includes nearly 29 notations of 90-day delinquency. Again, as with the other accounts, I requested documentation showing the origin of the account, chain of custody documents proving assignment or purchase, and validation of the balance. No documents were provided to confirm the accuracy of the reporting. Continuing to report inconsistent, unverified, or incomplete information violates FCRA 602A and 607 ( b ), which mandate that all reporting must be accurate and capable of being verified. \n\nOther furnishers such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reporting accounts that include charge-offs, late payments, and collection statuses. These accounts were disputed, and I specifically asked for original contracts, billing statements, records of transactions, and any documentation proving the existence of the alleged debt. None of the furnishers provided the requested documentation. The bureaus still marked the disputes as verified, which indicates that they did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by federal law. \n\nThere is also reporting from a state agency foXXXX XXXX XXXX  with a derogatory balance of approximately {$730.00}. This type of reporting requires official court orders, payment histories, and proper legal documentation. When this information was requested, the furnisher did not provide any of the required records. Reporting government-related debts must be handled with accuracy and complete documentation. Reporting incomplete or unverified data is a severe violation of 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, which requires maximum possible accuracy.\n\nAdditionally, student loan servicers, including DeptEd, XXXX, and XXXX, are reporting late payments or negative statuses that appear inconsistent with the payment history. I requested the master promissory note, transfer documents, and payment history records. These records were not provided, and the reporting continues despite a lack of verification. Continued reporting of student loan accounts without providing required legal documentation violates federal law. \n\nEach of these accounts contains inaccuracies, incomplete data, or missing documentation. Despite disputes, no furnisher or bureau has provided the information required to verify them. \n\nThe next issue involves the reinvestigation process. The disputes were handled improperly because the credit bureaus used automated systems instead of performing a real investigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), when a consumer disputes an account, the bureau must conduct an independent reinvestigation. However, the bureaus rely exclusively on the e-Oscar system, which only gives the furnisher a short code or reason and allows them to respond with a generic electronic code. No original documentation is exchanged. No evidence is reviewed. No contract, application, promissory note, or billing statement is analyzed. The bureaus essentially defer the investigation to the furnisher, which is not allowed under the statute.\n\nWhen I requested a Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), none of the bureaus provided a legally sufficient explanation. Instead, they provided generic statements claiming they verified the account with the furnisher, which is not an acceptable response. The law requires disclosure of the exact method, including the person contacted, the records reviewed, and the system used. The bureaus failed to provide this.\n\nI also requested an audit trail for each account, including timestamps, user IDs, system logs, and records of every update or verification. These records were not provided, even though they are necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal law.\n\nMany of the derogatory accounts remain on my report even though the companies did not validate them. Some accounts contain information that is internally inconsistent such as : conflicting dates duplicate entries varying balances inconsistent delinquency history accounts marked closed but with ongoing derogatory reporting collection balances that do not match the original creditors amounts These inconsistencies alone demonstrate that the accounts have not been properly verified.\n\nSome furnishers appear to have violated FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) because they failed to mark the account as disputed by consumer after being notified. This is a clear violation and creates misleading impressions to lenders.\n\nIn many cases, the bureaus closed my disputes prematurely or did not provide any explanation of how the reinvestigation was conducted. This failure to provide transparency violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). In addition, the bureaus did not justify why the accounts continued to be reported despite not providing the requested documentation.\n\nIn summary, all of the following problems occurred : Furnishers continued reporting information without verifying accuracy.\n\nThe credit bureaus conducted incomplete, automated, and unreasonable reinvestigations.\n\nThe bureaus did not provide a proper Method of Verification when requested.\n\nNo original signed contracts, agreements, or legal documents were supplied to validate the accounts.\n\nNo chain-of-custody documentation was provided for collection accounts.\n\nNo audit trails or system logs were provided.\n\nDisputed accounts were not always marked as disputed.\n\nSeveral accounts contain inconsistent, outdated, inaccurate, or conflicting information.\n\nThe bureaus continued reporting information that violates the FCRA 's accuracy and completeness requirements.\n\nSome furnishers failed to respond to disputes at all, yet the bureaus did not delete the unverifiable accounts.\n\nI am seeking assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because I have exhausted all reasonable efforts to work directly with the companies involved. The accounts remain unverified, incomplete, and inaccurately reported. Under FCRA 602A, consumers deserve accurate, fair, and privacy-respecting credit reporting. The companies involved have not fulfilled these obligations, and their actions have negatively affected my creditworthiness, reputation, and ability to obtain fair credit opportunities.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB intervene and require the companies to : provide full documentation proving the accuracy of each disputed account, including original contracts and legal agreements provide detailed verification methods correct or delete any information that can not be legally verified conduct a lawful, thorough, and independent reinvestigation update all credit bureaus with corrected or deleted data ensure that all furnishers comply with federal law and furnish complete, accurate, and verifiable data Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this matter and ensuring that the companies involved comply with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T19:01:52.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63366","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17522850","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-26T18:48:08.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated <em>confirmations</em>, or failed to <em>provide</em> any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. \n\nFor example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-<em>payment</em> <em>histories</em>, charge-offs, and closed statuses."]},"sort":[16.811237,"17522850"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17523395","_score":16.802275,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"What happened is that multiple companies, furnishers, and credit reporting agencies have continued to report numerous derogatory, inaccurate, unverified, and incomplete accounts on my credit file despite my repeated attempts to dispute, correct, or obtain proper validation and documentation. I followed the appropriate dispute procedures and provided detailed notices requesting verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), but the companies either ignored the request, failed to provide legally required documentation, or conducted superficial reinvestigations that did not meet the standards of FCRA 602A, 607 ( b ), and 611 ( a ).\n\nThere are several derogatory accounts being reported, including charge-offs, collections, late-payment histories, and negative statuses from multiple furnishers. These include accounts allegedly belonging to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, student loan servicers, and other furnishers who continue reporting even though none of the entities have provided the required validation documents or proof of accuracy. \n\nThe first problem is that the credit bureaus continue to accept and publish information that is unverified and unsupported by proper documentation. When I disputed the accounts, the credit bureaus used automated systems such as e-Oscar, which only facilitate automated XXXX  exchanges with the furnisher. This method does not satisfy the legal requirement for a reasonable reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), the bureaus are required to conduct an independent reinvestigation and verify each detail of the disputed information. Instead of reviewing original documentation, signed applications, promissory notes, or actual contracts, the bureaus simply relied on the furnishers electronic confirmation, even when the furnisher failed to provide legally required documentation.\n\nThe next issue arises from the furnishers themselves. Many of these companies are reporting derogatory accounts that include charge-off amounts, late-payment histories, collection balances, past-due statuses, and negative comments that are not supported by any physical contract or legal instrument. When a consumer disputes an account, furnishers are required under FCRA 623 to conduct their own investigation and verify the accuracy of the information before continuing to report it. Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated confirmations, or failed to provide any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. \n\nFor example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-payment histories, charge-offs, and closed statuses. However, when I disputed these accounts and requested original signed contracts, applications, or any proof of ownership, the furnisher did not provide any legally sufficient document. No signed application or evidence confirming that the account belongs to me was produced. Instead, the furnisher merely sent an electronic confirmation to the credit bureau through e-Oscar. The bureau then relied solely on that confirmation without further verification, which violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). \n\nAnother example includes accounts associated with XXXX  or XXXX XXXX, which are reporting late-payment histories and derogatory statuses but have not provided any contract or proof validating the account. The reported {$27.00} delinquency and multiple late-payment entries were disputed, yet the furnisher did not supply any signed agreement or proof that the account was legitimate. Under the FCRA, a furnisher can not continue reporting an account that can not be verified. The continued reporting, without documentation, demonstrates a failure to follow federal law. \n\nXXXX XXXX is reporting a collection amount of approximately {$3000.00}, including 90-day late notations across multiple months. This information is highly damaging and appears inconsistent. When I disputed this account, I requested proof of the debt, chain of assignment documents, bill of sale, and verification showing how XXXX XXXX obtained the account. None of these documents were provided. The furnisher failed to demonstrate that it had legal ownership of the account, nor did it provide any proof showing the accuracy of the balance or the dates of delinquency. Without proper documentation, this account can not be verified and should not be reported. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is reporting a derogatory collection in the approximate amount of {$970.00}. This account includes nearly 29 notations of 90-day delinquency. Again, as with the other accounts, I requested documentation showing the origin of the account, chain of custody documents proving assignment or purchase, and validation of the balance. No documents were provided to confirm the accuracy of the reporting. Continuing to report inconsistent, unverified, or incomplete information violates FCRA 602A and 607 ( b ), which mandate that all reporting must be accurate and capable of being verified. \n\nOther furnishers such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reporting accounts that include charge-offs, late payments, and collection statuses. These accounts were disputed, and I specifically asked for original contracts, billing statements, records of transactions, and any documentation proving the existence of the alleged debt. None of the furnishers provided the requested documentation. The bureaus still marked the disputes as verified, which indicates that they did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by federal law. \n\nThere is also reporting from a state agency foXXXX XXXX XXXX  with a derogatory balance of approximately {$730.00}. This type of reporting requires official court orders, payment histories, and proper legal documentation. When this information was requested, the furnisher did not provide any of the required records. Reporting government-related debts must be handled with accuracy and complete documentation. Reporting incomplete or unverified data is a severe violation of 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, which requires maximum possible accuracy.\n\nAdditionally, student loan servicers, including DeptEd, XXXX, and XXXX, are reporting late payments or negative statuses that appear inconsistent with the payment history. I requested the master promissory note, transfer documents, and payment history records. These records were not provided, and the reporting continues despite a lack of verification. Continued reporting of student loan accounts without providing required legal documentation violates federal law. \n\nEach of these accounts contains inaccuracies, incomplete data, or missing documentation. Despite disputes, no furnisher or bureau has provided the information required to verify them. \n\nThe next issue involves the reinvestigation process. The disputes were handled improperly because the credit bureaus used automated systems instead of performing a real investigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), when a consumer disputes an account, the bureau must conduct an independent reinvestigation. However, the bureaus rely exclusively on the e-Oscar system, which only gives the furnisher a short code or reason and allows them to respond with a generic electronic code. No original documentation is exchanged. No evidence is reviewed. No contract, application, promissory note, or billing statement is analyzed. The bureaus essentially defer the investigation to the furnisher, which is not allowed under the statute.\n\nWhen I requested a Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), none of the bureaus provided a legally sufficient explanation. Instead, they provided generic statements claiming they verified the account with the furnisher, which is not an acceptable response. The law requires disclosure of the exact method, including the person contacted, the records reviewed, and the system used. The bureaus failed to provide this.\n\nI also requested an audit trail for each account, including timestamps, user IDs, system logs, and records of every update or verification. These records were not provided, even though they are necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal law.\n\nMany of the derogatory accounts remain on my report even though the companies did not validate them. Some accounts contain information that is internally inconsistent such as : conflicting dates duplicate entries varying balances inconsistent delinquency history accounts marked closed but with ongoing derogatory reporting collection balances that do not match the original creditors amounts These inconsistencies alone demonstrate that the accounts have not been properly verified.\n\nSome furnishers appear to have violated FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) because they failed to mark the account as disputed by consumer after being notified. This is a clear violation and creates misleading impressions to lenders.\n\nIn many cases, the bureaus closed my disputes prematurely or did not provide any explanation of how the reinvestigation was conducted. This failure to provide transparency violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). In addition, the bureaus did not justify why the accounts continued to be reported despite not providing the requested documentation.\n\nIn summary, all of the following problems occurred : Furnishers continued reporting information without verifying accuracy.\n\nThe credit bureaus conducted incomplete, automated, and unreasonable reinvestigations.\n\nThe bureaus did not provide a proper Method of Verification when requested.\n\nNo original signed contracts, agreements, or legal documents were supplied to validate the accounts.\n\nNo chain-of-custody documentation was provided for collection accounts.\n\nNo audit trails or system logs were provided.\n\nDisputed accounts were not always marked as disputed.\n\nSeveral accounts contain inconsistent, outdated, inaccurate, or conflicting information.\n\nThe bureaus continued reporting information that violates the FCRA 's accuracy and completeness requirements.\n\nSome furnishers failed to respond to disputes at all, yet the bureaus did not delete the unverifiable accounts.\n\nI am seeking assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because I have exhausted all reasonable efforts to work directly with the companies involved. The accounts remain unverified, incomplete, and inaccurately reported. Under FCRA 602A, consumers deserve accurate, fair, and privacy-respecting credit reporting. The companies involved have not fulfilled these obligations, and their actions have negatively affected my creditworthiness, reputation, and ability to obtain fair credit opportunities.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB intervene and require the companies to : provide full documentation proving the accuracy of each disputed account, including original contracts and legal agreements provide detailed verification methods correct or delete any information that can not be legally verified conduct a lawful, thorough, and independent reinvestigation update all credit bureaus with corrected or deleted data ensure that all furnishers comply with federal law and furnish complete, accurate, and verifiable data Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this matter and ensuring that the companies involved comply with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T19:01:50.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63366","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17523395","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-26T18:59:01.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated <em>confirmations</em>, or failed to <em>provide</em> any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. \n\nFor example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-<em>payment</em> <em>histories</em>, charge-offs, and closed statuses."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[16.802275,"17523395"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20059470","_score":16.753746,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Request for IDR Account Adjustment Review, Loan History Reconciliation, and Payment Audit To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally request a comprehensive review of my federal student loan account under the Income-Driven Repayment ( IDR ) Account Adjustment initiative administered by the U.S. Department of Education . \n\nMy federal student loans have been in repayment or servicing status for more than fifteen years and have been transferred between multiple loan servicers during that time. Throughout the life of these loans, I have made substantial payments and have already paid down a significant portion of the principal balance. \n\nDue to a number of servicing issues that occurred over the years, I am requesting a full reconciliation of my loan history and an official determination of my qualifying payment count toward IDR forgiveness pursuant to the federal regulations governing income-driven repayment and federal student loan servicing. \n\nOver the life of these loans I experienced several issues that I believe should be reviewed as part of this account adjustment : I was placed into repeated and extended periods of forbearance rather than being informed of or guided into income-driven repayment options that may have been more appropriate. \nI was later informed that I had exhausted all available forbearance time, indicating that these periods were used extensively over the years. \nI received inconsistent and sometimes incorrect information from customer service representatives when contacting my loan servicers. \nMy account required adjustments that took several years to resolve, raising concerns regarding the accuracy of my loan accounting and repayment history. \nMy loans were transferred between multiple loan servicers over time, which may have contributed to incomplete or inaccurate payment records. \nI am a XXXX XXXX XXXX veteran and was a veteran at the time these loans were issued and throughout repayment. Despite this, I was never informed of federal borrower protections or veteran-related programs that may apply to my situation, including potential XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX options available to eligible veterans. \n\nGiven these circumstances, I respectfully request that the Department of Education conduct a full review of my account history to ensure that all qualifying repayment periods have been properly credited and that my account complies with applicable federal student loan regulations. \n\nSpecifically, I request the following actions : 1. Application of the IDR Account Adjustment to my full loan history in accordance with federal income-driven repayment regulations under 34 C.F.R. 685.209. \n2. A complete reconciliation of my repayment, deferment, and forbearance periods across all loan servicers pursuant to XXXX XXXX XXXX regulations in 34 C.F.R. Part 685. \n3. My official qualifying payment count toward IDR forgiveness.\n\n4. Confirmation that all eligible months have been properly credited under the Department of Educations IDR Account Adjustment policy.\n\n5. A determination of whether my loans have reached eligibility for forgiveness under applicable IDR timelines. \n6. A review to determine whether any payments were made after forgiveness eligibility may have been reached and whether those payments qualify for refund consideration.\n\nAdditionally, I request review under borrower counseling and information requirements established under 34 C.F.R. 685.304, which requires that borrowers receive clear and accurate information regarding repayment options and federal borrower protections. Given the repeated instances of inconsistent or incorrect information provided by loan servicers over the years, I request that this issue also be considered during the account review. \n\nThis request is also made pursuant to the XXXX XXXX XXXX authority established under the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1087e, which governs federal student loan servicing and borrower protections. \n\nPlease provide written confirmation of the results of this review, including : my official IDR qualifying payment count any corrections made to my repayment history confirmation of any forgiveness eligibility determination notification of any refunds owed due to excess payments Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving written confirmation once this review has been completed. \n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-07T02:58:41.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"76543","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20059470","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-07T02:48:38.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please <em>provide</em> written <em>confirmation</em> of the results of this review, including : my official IDR qualifying <em>payment</em> count any corrections made to my repayment <em>history</em> <em>confirmation</em> of any forgiveness eligibility determination notification of any refunds owed due to excess <em>payments</em> Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving written <em>confirmation</em> once this review has been completed. \n\nSincerely,"]},"sort":[16.753746,"20059470"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16311269","_score":16.720474,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"For Affirm XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LA XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> To : Affirm , Inc. XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT XXXX Re : Loan Account XXXX Request for Full Verification To Whom It May Concern, This is my 3rd request for full verification of the above-referenced account that you are reporting or attempting to collect. Please note that providing only billing statements or a generic loan disclosure does not constitute full validation under federal law.\n\nTo properly verify this account, I am requesting : 1. A complete copy of the executed Loan Agreement that you claim I entered into ; 2. The full e-signature audit trail, including : IP address of the device used, Date and time stamps of all electronic actions, Authentication methods used ( such as SSN, DOB, SMS code, etc. ), Confirmation of electronic consent ; 3. All payment history records applied to this account ; 4. Documentation of your authority to report this account to the credit reporting agencies or to collect on it.\n\nPlease note : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), any information you furnish to a credit reporting agency must be accurate and verifiable.\n\nUnder the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( if applicable ), you must provide full validation of the debt upon request.\n\nUnder the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), you are required to provide copies of loan agreements and disclosures when requested.\n\nFailure to provide this documentation within the required timeframe will mean that this account is not verifiable, and I will request its deletion from all credit reporting agencies and file further complaints Also, Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g, I am formally requesting verification of this debt.\n\nPlease provide written confirmation of the following : 1. The current status of this account, including the outstanding balance, if any.\n\n2. Documentation showing that you are the current owner or authorized collector of this debt.\n\n3. Whether any portion of this debt has been or will be canceled, forgiven, or settled.\n\n4. If a Form 1099-C ( Cancellation of Debt ) will be issued to me or reported to the IRS in relation to this account.\n\nI request that all information be provided in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Until verification is provided, please cease all collection efforts on this account.\n\nPlease be advised that I am keeping detailed records of all communications regarding this account, including any potential misreporting or failure to provide verification, for my records and any necessary legal or tax purposes.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-02T20:47:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70403","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16311269","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-10-02T20:47:17.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The full e-signature <em>audit</em> trail, including : IP address of the device used, Date and time stamps of all electronic actions, Authentication methods used ( such as SSN, DOB, SMS code, etc. ), <em>Confirmation</em> of electronic consent ; 3. All <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> records applied to this account ; 4. Documentation of your authority to report this account to the credit reporting agencies or to collect on it."]},"sort":[16.720474,"16311269"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16320547","_score":16.719934,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"For XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LA XXXX Date : XX/XX/year>XXXX  To : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT XXXX Re : Loan Account XXXX  Request for Full Verification To Whom It May Concern, This is my 3rd request for full verification of the above-referenced account that you are reporting or attempting to collect. Please note that providing only billing statements or a generic loan disclosure does not constitute full validation under federal law. \n\nTo properly verify this account, I am requesting : 1. A complete copy of the executed Loan Agreement that you claim I entered into ; 2. The full e-signature audit trail, including : IP address of the device used, Date and time stamps of all electronic actions, Authentication methods used ( such as SSN, DOB, SMS code, etc. ), Confirmation of electronic consent ; 3. All payment history records applied to this account ; 4. Documentation of your authority to report this account to the credit reporting agencies or to collect on it.\n\nPlease note : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), any information you furnish to a credit reporting agency must be accurate and verifiable. \nUnder the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( if applicable ), you must provide full validation of the debt upon request. \nUnder the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), you are required to provide copies of loan agreements and disclosures when requested.\n\nFailure to provide this documentation within the required timeframe will mean that this account is not verifiable, and I will request its deletion from all credit reporting agencies and file further complaints Also, Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g, I am formally requesting verification of this debt.\n\nPlease provide written confirmation of the following : 1. The current status of this account, including the outstanding balance, if any.\n\n2. Documentation showing that you are the current owner or authorized collector of this debt.\n\n3. Whether any portion of this debt has been or will be canceled, forgiven, or settled.\n\n4. If a Form 1099-C ( Cancellation of Debt ) will be issued to me or reported to the IRS in relation to this account.\n\nI request that all information be provided in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Until verification is provided, please cease all collection efforts on this account. \n\nPlease be advised that I am keeping detailed records of all communications regarding this account, including any potential misreporting or failure to provide verification, for my records and any necessary legal or tax purposes.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-02T20:47:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70403","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16320547","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-02T20:33:36.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The full e-signature <em>audit</em> trail, including : IP address of the device used, Date and time stamps of all electronic actions, Authentication methods used ( such as SSN, DOB, SMS code, etc. ), <em>Confirmation</em> of electronic consent ; 3. All <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> records applied to this account ; 4. Documentation of your authority to report this account to the credit reporting agencies or to collect on it."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[16.719934,"16320547"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210530","_score":16.42691,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal statement to document ongoing and unresolved issues with several negative and derogatory accounts currently reported on my consumer credit file across all three major credit bureaus. This statement represents a comprehensive, detailed, and factual account of the situation and my repeated efforts to obtain lawful validation, accuracy, and procedural fairness in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nFor several months, I have been reviewing my credit reports, identifying inconsistencies, and making direct disputes concerning multiple accounts that continue to appear as derogatory, charge-off, or collection, despite the absence of verifiable evidence or lawful documentation proving their validity. These accounts include entries allegedly associated with CXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In total, seven accounts remain flagged as negative or derogatory. Each of these entries has contributed to an unjustified lowering of my credit score, negatively affecting my ability to obtain housing, fair financing, and employment opportunities. \n\nThe issue is not simply about the existence of a balance, but about the accuracy, authorization, and procedural compliance behind the continued reporting of these accounts. The FCRA and FDCPA are designed to protect consumers from inaccurate, outdated, or unverifiable reporting. Under these laws, every furnisher and credit bureau has an affirmative duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy, to verify disputed items through reasonable reinvestigation, and to cease reporting unverifiable data. Unfortunately, despite my lawful dispute requests and written communications, these obligations have not been fully met. \n\n1. Initial Review and Discovery of Inaccurate Accounts Upon reviewing my consumer reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, I identified multiple derogatory entries that lacked consistent or verifiable data. Each bureau displayed variations in account numbers, balances, payment histories, or charge-off dates. Some accounts appeared duplicated across different bureaus under slightly different identifiers, suggesting a data transfer or reporting error. \n\nFor example, the entries associated with XXXX XXXX appear twice both as an open charge-off and as a separate derogatory listing even though both represent the same original debt obligation. The reporting history across the bureaus does not align, and no uniform documentation has ever been provided to confirm the existence of two separate accounts. These discrepancies raise serious questions about data accuracy and compliance with FCRA 607 ( B ), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nAdditionally, other accounts such as those associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reported as collections but lack a clear chain of assignment from the original creditor. Debt buyers like XXXX and XXXX XXXX must produce original contracts, statements, or purchase agreements proving ownership and the right to report such data. Without these documents, the continued appearance of these accounts violates FDCPA 809 ( b ), which mandates that a debt collector must cease collection and provide full validation upon a consumers written request. \n\nI have previously submitted written disputes to the bureaus and the furnishers, requesting documentation and method of verification. However, the responses I received were either form letters stating the accounts were verified or notifications that the investigation was completed without substantive evidence. None of the bureaus have ever produced the original signed agreements, ledgers, or audit trails that would demonstrate lawful reporting or accurate verification. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), a consumer has the right to receive a method of verification a detailed description of how disputed information was verified, including the name and contact of the furnisher, the procedure followed, and any documentation relied upon. Despite requesting this multiple times, I have never received such disclosure. \n\nIn several responses, the bureaus simply stated that the information was verified as accurate without specifying whether the verification was conducted through e-Oscar ( the automated system used for disputes ), through manual review, or through communication with a third-party data processor. \n\nIf the verification was performed through e-Oscar, this system is inherently limited because it reduces complex disputes to two- or three-digit response codes. These automated responses do not constitute a proper reinvestigation or documentary validation under FCRA standards. Without documentary evidence, audit logs, or data transfer details, there is no way to confirm that the disputed accounts were legitimately reviewed, nor that they are based on accurate or complete data. \n\nTherefore, I am requesting a full description of the verification process, including : The system or method used to verify each disputed account. \n\nThe name and contact of the individual or department responsible for verification. \n\nThe original documentation or electronic data used to substantiate each item. \n\nThe chain of custody showing how the data was transferred from the furnisher to the bureau. \nIf no such records exist, the disputed items must be deleted immediately as unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Audit Trail and Chain of Reporting I have also requested an audit trail showing every action taken regarding each disputed account since its initial reporting. This includes timestamps, data furnisher identifiers, user IDs, and any modification logs showing when updates or verifications occurred. To date, no bureau or furnisher has provided this data. \n\nSuch documentation is critical because it establishes whether proper verification procedures were followed, whether any reinsertion of deleted information occurred, and whether each furnisher continues to report in good faith. Without this audit trail, the accuracy and legitimacy of these records remain questionable. \n\nFor instance, the account associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shows multiple late payments and a charge-off, yet no record of ongoing ownership or transfer has been produced. Similarly, XXXX and XXXX entries contain past-due balances without corresponding evidence of consumer consent, signed agreement, or original billing statements. \n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), a furnisher must report that an account is disputed by the consumer when such disputes are filed. Yet some accounts remain without this required notation. This omission further indicates noncompliance and undermines the fairness and transparency required by law. \n\n4. Duplicate and Outdated Information Some accounts appear to be duplicated or re-aged to appear more recent than they actually are. For example, two separate XXXX XXXX listings exist under different variations of the same account number, one showing as charge-off and another as derogatory. Both reference similar balances and payment histories, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. \n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request confirmation of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account. If any entry exceeds this time frame or has been re-aged without proper documentation, it must be permanently removed. \n\n5. Procedural Failures and Lack of Independent Reinvestigation Despite prior dispute submissions, the responses from the credit bureaus suggest that reinvestigations were conducted solely through automated data exchange with furnishers. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation, meaning a substantive and independent review not a mere reliance on the furnishers word or an automated system result. \n\nThe continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable data, without substantive documentation, constitutes a procedural failure. I have not received : Copies of any original contracts or applications bearing my signature. \n\nRecords of internal correspondence showing a reinvestigation. \n\nWritten confirmation of communication between the bureau and the furnisher. \n\nThis lack of transparency prevents meaningful consumer review and obstructs my legal rights to accuracy, fairness, and correction. \n\nXXXX. Legal Basis for My Complaint The following sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are relevant to this situation : FCRA 602A : Declares that fair and accurate reporting is essential to consumer protection and mandates responsible data handling.\n\nFCRA 607 ( B ) : Requires credit bureaus to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) : Grants consumers the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information and obligates bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Requires deletion of unverifiable data and prohibits reinsertion without notice.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Requires furnishers to mark accounts as disputed by consumer.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) : Requires collectors to provide full validation upon written request and to cease reporting unverifiable debts.\n\nThe continued appearance of these derogatory accounts, without verifiable validation or legal authorization, constitutes potential noncompliance with one or more of these statutes.\n\n7. Impact on Creditworthiness and Consumer Harm The reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts has caused tangible harm. Because these entries appear as active delinquencies or charge-offs, my credit utilization and payment history metrics are distorted. This directly affects credit scores and the ability to obtain reasonable financing terms. \n\nBeyond the financial damage, the emotional and reputational effects are significant. Consumers rely on the accuracy of their credit reports for employment, housing, and professional opportunities. When unverifiable accounts persist despite legitimate disputes, it erodes trust in the reporting system and leaves consumers without meaningful recourse. \n\nXXXX. Requested Remedies and Resolution I respectfully request that all involved credit bureaus and furnishers take the following actions : Conduct a full reinvestigation in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ).\n\nProvide the method of verification for each disputed account, including source documentation and audit logs.\n\nRemove or suppress all unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts pending validation.\n\nMark each disputed item as in dispute by consumer until validation is complete.\n\nProvide a written explanation of the outcome of each reinvestigation and copies of any documentation used to verify the accounts.\n\nEnsure that deleted items are not reinserted without following the reinsertion procedures under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including advance written notice to the consumer.\n\nProvide confirmation of updated reports to all parties who have received the erroneous data within the past six months, as required by FCRA 611 ( d ). \n\nIf the bureaus or furnishers can not provide lawful documentation including contracts, signed agreements, account histories, or transfer records they must delete these items permanently. \n\n9. Continued Oversight and Compliance Expectations I expect full transparency throughout this process. If any account is verified, I request that the verifying party produce the exact materials relied upon. General statements such as verified by furnisher or confirmed as accurate do not satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nIf any furnisher fails to respond or refuses to validate, their reporting rights should be suspended pending investigation. I also request confirmation that all furnishers involved are registered and compliant under applicable state and federal laws. \n\nI intend to continue monitoring my reports closely to ensure compliance. If the disputed accounts remain without adequate documentation, I may pursue further remedies through formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, the Missouri Attorney General, or through private legal action.\n\n10. Summary In summary, this dispute concerns the accuracy, completeness, and verification of several derogatory accounts currently reported on my credit file. The principal issues are as follows : Multiple accounts appear duplicative or inconsistent across credit bureaus. \n\nNo written documentation or original contracts have been provided for any of the disputed items. \n\nThe bureaus have failed to provide a detailed method of verification. \n\nSome accounts may have been re-aged or continued past the permissible reporting period.\n\nCertain furnishers, particularly debt purchasers, have not proven ownership or legal authority to report the alleged debts.\n\nRequired dispute notations under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) are missing.\n\nThe overall process has lacked procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability.\n\nGiven the above, I am requesting that all seven disputed derogatory accounts be immediately removed or suppressed pending full validation. If any account can not be verified with documentary evidence, it must be deleted entirely in accordance with federal law. \n\nI believe this request is reasonable, supported by statutory authority, and made in good faith. I have acted in accordance with my rights under the FCRA and FDCPA, providing notice, opportunity for investigation, and repeated requests for documentation. The continued reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate information constitutes noncompliance and requires immediate correction. \n\nI respectfully request written confirmation once this matter has been fully investigated and resolved.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:01:48.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63135","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210530","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T00:53:50.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Both reference similar <em>balances</em> and <em>payment</em> <em>histories</em>, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. \n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request <em>confirmation</em> of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account."]},"sort":[16.42691,"17210530"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210500","_score":16.42691,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal statement to document ongoing and unresolved issues with several negative and derogatory accounts currently reported on my consumer credit file across all three major credit bureaus. This statement represents a comprehensive, detailed, and factual account of the situation and my repeated efforts to obtain lawful validation, accuracy, and procedural fairness in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nFor several months, I have been reviewing my credit reports, identifying inconsistencies, and making direct disputes concerning multiple accounts that continue to appear as derogatory, charge-off, or collection, despite the absence of verifiable evidence or lawful documentation proving their validity. These accounts include entries allegedly associated with CXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In total, seven accounts remain flagged as negative or derogatory. Each of these entries has contributed to an unjustified lowering of my credit score, negatively affecting my ability to obtain housing, fair financing, and employment opportunities. \n\nThe issue is not simply about the existence of a balance, but about the accuracy, authorization, and procedural compliance behind the continued reporting of these accounts. The FCRA and FDCPA are designed to protect consumers from inaccurate, outdated, or unverifiable reporting. Under these laws, every furnisher and credit bureau has an affirmative duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy, to verify disputed items through reasonable reinvestigation, and to cease reporting unverifiable data. Unfortunately, despite my lawful dispute requests and written communications, these obligations have not been fully met. \n\n1. Initial Review and Discovery of Inaccurate Accounts Upon reviewing my consumer reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, I identified multiple derogatory entries that lacked consistent or verifiable data. Each bureau displayed variations in account numbers, balances, payment histories, or charge-off dates. Some accounts appeared duplicated across different bureaus under slightly different identifiers, suggesting a data transfer or reporting error. \n\nFor example, the entries associated with XXXX XXXX appear twice both as an open charge-off and as a separate derogatory listing even though both represent the same original debt obligation. The reporting history across the bureaus does not align, and no uniform documentation has ever been provided to confirm the existence of two separate accounts. These discrepancies raise serious questions about data accuracy and compliance with FCRA 607 ( B ), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nAdditionally, other accounts such as those associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reported as collections but lack a clear chain of assignment from the original creditor. Debt buyers like XXXX and XXXX XXXX must produce original contracts, statements, or purchase agreements proving ownership and the right to report such data. Without these documents, the continued appearance of these accounts violates FDCPA 809 ( b ), which mandates that a debt collector must cease collection and provide full validation upon a consumers written request. \n\nI have previously submitted written disputes to the bureaus and the furnishers, requesting documentation and method of verification. However, the responses I received were either form letters stating the accounts were verified or notifications that the investigation was completed without substantive evidence. None of the bureaus have ever produced the original signed agreements, ledgers, or audit trails that would demonstrate lawful reporting or accurate verification. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), a consumer has the right to receive a method of verification a detailed description of how disputed information was verified, including the name and contact of the furnisher, the procedure followed, and any documentation relied upon. Despite requesting this multiple times, I have never received such disclosure. \n\nIn several responses, the bureaus simply stated that the information was verified as accurate without specifying whether the verification was conducted through e-Oscar ( the automated system used for disputes ), through manual review, or through communication with a third-party data processor. \n\nIf the verification was performed through e-Oscar, this system is inherently limited because it reduces complex disputes to two- or three-digit response codes. These automated responses do not constitute a proper reinvestigation or documentary validation under FCRA standards. Without documentary evidence, audit logs, or data transfer details, there is no way to confirm that the disputed accounts were legitimately reviewed, nor that they are based on accurate or complete data. \n\nTherefore, I am requesting a full description of the verification process, including : The system or method used to verify each disputed account. \n\nThe name and contact of the individual or department responsible for verification. \n\nThe original documentation or electronic data used to substantiate each item. \n\nThe chain of custody showing how the data was transferred from the furnisher to the bureau. \nIf no such records exist, the disputed items must be deleted immediately as unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Audit Trail and Chain of Reporting I have also requested an audit trail showing every action taken regarding each disputed account since its initial reporting. This includes timestamps, data furnisher identifiers, user IDs, and any modification logs showing when updates or verifications occurred. To date, no bureau or furnisher has provided this data. \n\nSuch documentation is critical because it establishes whether proper verification procedures were followed, whether any reinsertion of deleted information occurred, and whether each furnisher continues to report in good faith. Without this audit trail, the accuracy and legitimacy of these records remain questionable. \n\nFor instance, the account associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shows multiple late payments and a charge-off, yet no record of ongoing ownership or transfer has been produced. Similarly, XXXX and XXXX entries contain past-due balances without corresponding evidence of consumer consent, signed agreement, or original billing statements. \n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), a furnisher must report that an account is disputed by the consumer when such disputes are filed. Yet some accounts remain without this required notation. This omission further indicates noncompliance and undermines the fairness and transparency required by law. \n\n4. Duplicate and Outdated Information Some accounts appear to be duplicated or re-aged to appear more recent than they actually are. For example, two separate XXXX XXXX listings exist under different variations of the same account number, one showing as charge-off and another as derogatory. Both reference similar balances and payment histories, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. \n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request confirmation of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account. If any entry exceeds this time frame or has been re-aged without proper documentation, it must be permanently removed. \n\n5. Procedural Failures and Lack of Independent Reinvestigation Despite prior dispute submissions, the responses from the credit bureaus suggest that reinvestigations were conducted solely through automated data exchange with furnishers. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation, meaning a substantive and independent review not a mere reliance on the furnishers word or an automated system result. \n\nThe continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable data, without substantive documentation, constitutes a procedural failure. I have not received : Copies of any original contracts or applications bearing my signature. \n\nRecords of internal correspondence showing a reinvestigation. \n\nWritten confirmation of communication between the bureau and the furnisher. \n\nThis lack of transparency prevents meaningful consumer review and obstructs my legal rights to accuracy, fairness, and correction. \n\nXXXX. Legal Basis for My Complaint The following sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are relevant to this situation : FCRA 602A : Declares that fair and accurate reporting is essential to consumer protection and mandates responsible data handling.\n\nFCRA 607 ( B ) : Requires credit bureaus to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) : Grants consumers the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information and obligates bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Requires deletion of unverifiable data and prohibits reinsertion without notice.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Requires furnishers to mark accounts as disputed by consumer.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) : Requires collectors to provide full validation upon written request and to cease reporting unverifiable debts.\n\nThe continued appearance of these derogatory accounts, without verifiable validation or legal authorization, constitutes potential noncompliance with one or more of these statutes.\n\n7. Impact on Creditworthiness and Consumer Harm The reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts has caused tangible harm. Because these entries appear as active delinquencies or charge-offs, my credit utilization and payment history metrics are distorted. This directly affects credit scores and the ability to obtain reasonable financing terms. \n\nBeyond the financial damage, the emotional and reputational effects are significant. Consumers rely on the accuracy of their credit reports for employment, housing, and professional opportunities. When unverifiable accounts persist despite legitimate disputes, it erodes trust in the reporting system and leaves consumers without meaningful recourse. \n\nXXXX. Requested Remedies and Resolution I respectfully request that all involved credit bureaus and furnishers take the following actions : Conduct a full reinvestigation in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ).\n\nProvide the method of verification for each disputed account, including source documentation and audit logs.\n\nRemove or suppress all unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts pending validation.\n\nMark each disputed item as in dispute by consumer until validation is complete.\n\nProvide a written explanation of the outcome of each reinvestigation and copies of any documentation used to verify the accounts.\n\nEnsure that deleted items are not reinserted without following the reinsertion procedures under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including advance written notice to the consumer.\n\nProvide confirmation of updated reports to all parties who have received the erroneous data within the past six months, as required by FCRA 611 ( d ). \n\nIf the bureaus or furnishers can not provide lawful documentation including contracts, signed agreements, account histories, or transfer records they must delete these items permanently. \n\n9. Continued Oversight and Compliance Expectations I expect full transparency throughout this process. If any account is verified, I request that the verifying party produce the exact materials relied upon. General statements such as verified by furnisher or confirmed as accurate do not satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nIf any furnisher fails to respond or refuses to validate, their reporting rights should be suspended pending investigation. I also request confirmation that all furnishers involved are registered and compliant under applicable state and federal laws. \n\nI intend to continue monitoring my reports closely to ensure compliance. If the disputed accounts remain without adequate documentation, I may pursue further remedies through formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, the Missouri Attorney General, or through private legal action.\n\n10. Summary In summary, this dispute concerns the accuracy, completeness, and verification of several derogatory accounts currently reported on my credit file. The principal issues are as follows : Multiple accounts appear duplicative or inconsistent across credit bureaus. \n\nNo written documentation or original contracts have been provided for any of the disputed items. \n\nThe bureaus have failed to provide a detailed method of verification. \n\nSome accounts may have been re-aged or continued past the permissible reporting period.\n\nCertain furnishers, particularly debt purchasers, have not proven ownership or legal authority to report the alleged debts.\n\nRequired dispute notations under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) are missing.\n\nThe overall process has lacked procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability.\n\nGiven the above, I am requesting that all seven disputed derogatory accounts be immediately removed or suppressed pending full validation. If any account can not be verified with documentary evidence, it must be deleted entirely in accordance with federal law. \n\nI believe this request is reasonable, supported by statutory authority, and made in good faith. I have acted in accordance with my rights under the FCRA and FDCPA, providing notice, opportunity for investigation, and repeated requests for documentation. The continued reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate information constitutes noncompliance and requires immediate correction. \n\nI respectfully request written confirmation once this matter has been fully investigated and resolved.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:01:43.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63135","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210500","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:01:12.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Both reference similar <em>balances</em> and <em>payment</em> <em>histories</em>, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. \n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request <em>confirmation</em> of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[16.42691,"17210500"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210499","_score":16.42691,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal statement to document ongoing and unresolved issues with several negative and derogatory accounts currently reported on my consumer credit file across all three major credit bureaus. This statement represents a comprehensive, detailed, and factual account of the situation and my repeated efforts to obtain lawful validation, accuracy, and procedural fairness in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nFor several months, I have been reviewing my credit reports, identifying inconsistencies, and making direct disputes concerning multiple accounts that continue to appear as derogatory, charge-off, or collection, despite the absence of verifiable evidence or lawful documentation proving their validity. These accounts include entries allegedly associated with CXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In total, seven accounts remain flagged as negative or derogatory. Each of these entries has contributed to an unjustified lowering of my credit score, negatively affecting my ability to obtain housing, fair financing, and employment opportunities. \n\nThe issue is not simply about the existence of a balance, but about the accuracy, authorization, and procedural compliance behind the continued reporting of these accounts. The FCRA and FDCPA are designed to protect consumers from inaccurate, outdated, or unverifiable reporting. Under these laws, every furnisher and credit bureau has an affirmative duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy, to verify disputed items through reasonable reinvestigation, and to cease reporting unverifiable data. Unfortunately, despite my lawful dispute requests and written communications, these obligations have not been fully met. \n\n1. Initial Review and Discovery of Inaccurate Accounts Upon reviewing my consumer reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, I identified multiple derogatory entries that lacked consistent or verifiable data. Each bureau displayed variations in account numbers, balances, payment histories, or charge-off dates. Some accounts appeared duplicated across different bureaus under slightly different identifiers, suggesting a data transfer or reporting error. \n\nFor example, the entries associated with XXXX XXXX appear twice both as an open charge-off and as a separate derogatory listing even though both represent the same original debt obligation. The reporting history across the bureaus does not align, and no uniform documentation has ever been provided to confirm the existence of two separate accounts. These discrepancies raise serious questions about data accuracy and compliance with FCRA 607 ( B ), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nAdditionally, other accounts such as those associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reported as collections but lack a clear chain of assignment from the original creditor. Debt buyers like XXXX and XXXX XXXX must produce original contracts, statements, or purchase agreements proving ownership and the right to report such data. Without these documents, the continued appearance of these accounts violates FDCPA 809 ( b ), which mandates that a debt collector must cease collection and provide full validation upon a consumers written request. \n\nI have previously submitted written disputes to the bureaus and the furnishers, requesting documentation and method of verification. However, the responses I received were either form letters stating the accounts were verified or notifications that the investigation was completed without substantive evidence. None of the bureaus have ever produced the original signed agreements, ledgers, or audit trails that would demonstrate lawful reporting or accurate verification. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), a consumer has the right to receive a method of verification a detailed description of how disputed information was verified, including the name and contact of the furnisher, the procedure followed, and any documentation relied upon. Despite requesting this multiple times, I have never received such disclosure. \n\nIn several responses, the bureaus simply stated that the information was verified as accurate without specifying whether the verification was conducted through e-Oscar ( the automated system used for disputes ), through manual review, or through communication with a third-party data processor. \n\nIf the verification was performed through e-Oscar, this system is inherently limited because it reduces complex disputes to two- or three-digit response codes. These automated responses do not constitute a proper reinvestigation or documentary validation under FCRA standards. Without documentary evidence, audit logs, or data transfer details, there is no way to confirm that the disputed accounts were legitimately reviewed, nor that they are based on accurate or complete data. \n\nTherefore, I am requesting a full description of the verification process, including : The system or method used to verify each disputed account. \n\nThe name and contact of the individual or department responsible for verification. \n\nThe original documentation or electronic data used to substantiate each item. \n\nThe chain of custody showing how the data was transferred from the furnisher to the bureau. \nIf no such records exist, the disputed items must be deleted immediately as unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Audit Trail and Chain of Reporting I have also requested an audit trail showing every action taken regarding each disputed account since its initial reporting. This includes timestamps, data furnisher identifiers, user IDs, and any modification logs showing when updates or verifications occurred. To date, no bureau or furnisher has provided this data. \n\nSuch documentation is critical because it establishes whether proper verification procedures were followed, whether any reinsertion of deleted information occurred, and whether each furnisher continues to report in good faith. Without this audit trail, the accuracy and legitimacy of these records remain questionable. \n\nFor instance, the account associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shows multiple late payments and a charge-off, yet no record of ongoing ownership or transfer has been produced. Similarly, XXXX and XXXX entries contain past-due balances without corresponding evidence of consumer consent, signed agreement, or original billing statements. \n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), a furnisher must report that an account is disputed by the consumer when such disputes are filed. Yet some accounts remain without this required notation. This omission further indicates noncompliance and undermines the fairness and transparency required by law. \n\n4. Duplicate and Outdated Information Some accounts appear to be duplicated or re-aged to appear more recent than they actually are. For example, two separate XXXX XXXX listings exist under different variations of the same account number, one showing as charge-off and another as derogatory. Both reference similar balances and payment histories, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. \n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request confirmation of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account. If any entry exceeds this time frame or has been re-aged without proper documentation, it must be permanently removed. \n\n5. Procedural Failures and Lack of Independent Reinvestigation Despite prior dispute submissions, the responses from the credit bureaus suggest that reinvestigations were conducted solely through automated data exchange with furnishers. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation, meaning a substantive and independent review not a mere reliance on the furnishers word or an automated system result. \n\nThe continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable data, without substantive documentation, constitutes a procedural failure. I have not received : Copies of any original contracts or applications bearing my signature. \n\nRecords of internal correspondence showing a reinvestigation. \n\nWritten confirmation of communication between the bureau and the furnisher. \n\nThis lack of transparency prevents meaningful consumer review and obstructs my legal rights to accuracy, fairness, and correction. \n\nXXXX. Legal Basis for My Complaint The following sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are relevant to this situation : FCRA 602A : Declares that fair and accurate reporting is essential to consumer protection and mandates responsible data handling.\n\nFCRA 607 ( B ) : Requires credit bureaus to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) : Grants consumers the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information and obligates bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Requires deletion of unverifiable data and prohibits reinsertion without notice.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Requires furnishers to mark accounts as disputed by consumer.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) : Requires collectors to provide full validation upon written request and to cease reporting unverifiable debts.\n\nThe continued appearance of these derogatory accounts, without verifiable validation or legal authorization, constitutes potential noncompliance with one or more of these statutes.\n\n7. Impact on Creditworthiness and Consumer Harm The reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts has caused tangible harm. Because these entries appear as active delinquencies or charge-offs, my credit utilization and payment history metrics are distorted. This directly affects credit scores and the ability to obtain reasonable financing terms. \n\nBeyond the financial damage, the emotional and reputational effects are significant. Consumers rely on the accuracy of their credit reports for employment, housing, and professional opportunities. When unverifiable accounts persist despite legitimate disputes, it erodes trust in the reporting system and leaves consumers without meaningful recourse. \n\nXXXX. Requested Remedies and Resolution I respectfully request that all involved credit bureaus and furnishers take the following actions : Conduct a full reinvestigation in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ).\n\nProvide the method of verification for each disputed account, including source documentation and audit logs.\n\nRemove or suppress all unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts pending validation.\n\nMark each disputed item as in dispute by consumer until validation is complete.\n\nProvide a written explanation of the outcome of each reinvestigation and copies of any documentation used to verify the accounts.\n\nEnsure that deleted items are not reinserted without following the reinsertion procedures under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including advance written notice to the consumer.\n\nProvide confirmation of updated reports to all parties who have received the erroneous data within the past six months, as required by FCRA 611 ( d ). \n\nIf the bureaus or furnishers can not provide lawful documentation including contracts, signed agreements, account histories, or transfer records they must delete these items permanently. \n\n9. Continued Oversight and Compliance Expectations I expect full transparency throughout this process. If any account is verified, I request that the verifying party produce the exact materials relied upon. General statements such as verified by furnisher or confirmed as accurate do not satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nIf any furnisher fails to respond or refuses to validate, their reporting rights should be suspended pending investigation. I also request confirmation that all furnishers involved are registered and compliant under applicable state and federal laws. \n\nI intend to continue monitoring my reports closely to ensure compliance. If the disputed accounts remain without adequate documentation, I may pursue further remedies through formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, the Missouri Attorney General, or through private legal action.\n\n10. Summary In summary, this dispute concerns the accuracy, completeness, and verification of several derogatory accounts currently reported on my credit file. The principal issues are as follows : Multiple accounts appear duplicative or inconsistent across credit bureaus. \n\nNo written documentation or original contracts have been provided for any of the disputed items. \n\nThe bureaus have failed to provide a detailed method of verification. \n\nSome accounts may have been re-aged or continued past the permissible reporting period.\n\nCertain furnishers, particularly debt purchasers, have not proven ownership or legal authority to report the alleged debts.\n\nRequired dispute notations under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) are missing.\n\nThe overall process has lacked procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability.\n\nGiven the above, I am requesting that all seven disputed derogatory accounts be immediately removed or suppressed pending full validation. If any account can not be verified with documentary evidence, it must be deleted entirely in accordance with federal law. \n\nI believe this request is reasonable, supported by statutory authority, and made in good faith. I have acted in accordance with my rights under the FCRA and FDCPA, providing notice, opportunity for investigation, and repeated requests for documentation. The continued reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate information constitutes noncompliance and requires immediate correction. \n\nI respectfully request written confirmation once this matter has been fully investigated and resolved.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:01:43.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63135","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210499","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:01:12.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Both reference similar <em>balances</em> and <em>payment</em> <em>histories</em>, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. \n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request <em>confirmation</em> of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[16.42691,"17210499"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17869355","_score":15.702393,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Summary : Attempted to get original loan notice and payment history from Regional Acceptance/Truist for 6 months, all while making payments, past my last payment due date.\n\nAttempted to make loan payments and creditor would not accept payments, including them disconnecting the call, multiple times. \n\nIn XXXX of 2025 I solicited the assistance of XXXX  XXXX XXXX | complaint XXXX ( including original loan documents, payment history ). XXXX  XXXX office was unsuccessful in their mediation attempts, documented via letters. \n\nMuch later, the creditor sent history of payments. In those documents, it shows more than the contracted 72 payments, as agreed upon in the original loan documents. However Regional Acceptance continued to demand payments and each demand included varying loan balances and debts, none of which they could reconcile nor explain.\n\nI sent a certified letter to the creditor that disputed the balance, demanded a refund of overpayments, corrections to consumer reporting bureaus, demanded auto title, solicited an accounting to justify their moving balances, and 'do not call ' via auto dialer. The creditor did not respond.\n\nDespite that, the creditor attempted an illegal repossession of the vehicle in XX/XX/year>, breaching the peace, recorded ( and saved ) on XXXX XXXX  footage. The tow driver documented the incident, put the vehicle back into the driveway ( per his supervisor ) and left the premises ; themselves claiming that something 'shady ' was going on with Regional Acceptance. \n\nI sent another notice to the creditor in XXXX, outlining all details to-date, again - disputed the balance, demanded a refund of overpayments, corrections to consumer reporting bureaus, demanded auto title, solicited an accounting to justify their moving balances, and 'do not call ' via auto dialer. \n\nThe creditor engaged in illegal credit/debt collection practices, failed to adhere to \" do not call '' laws, engaged in illegal repossession of a vehicle while payments were in dispute and fails to abide by consumer laws. Copies of the complaint are sent to you office via XXXX certified mail on XX/XX/year>. \n________ Details : Type of Complaint | Auto loan servicing, Incorrect account status / paid-in-full dispute, Wrongful repossession attempt, Harassment / contact after cease request, Credit reporting errors, Failure to investigate dispute, Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) On XX/XX/year>, I received a \" Notice of Right to Cure Default '' from Regional Acceptance even though my loan obligation had been completed. On XX/XX/year>, I sent a certified formal dispute and demand letter stating : My auto loan obligation was completed and paid in full, I had overpaid after the XXXX payment and demanded a refund, I demanded confirmation of paid-in-full status and account closure, I demanded cessation of all collection activity, including phone calls and automated dialers, I demanded correction of any inaccurate credit reporting, and I provided a 15businessday deadline to respond.\n\nI also filed a formal complaint with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, which Regional Acceptance acknowledged and responded to. Despite this : Regional Acceptance never responded to my certified dispute letter.\n\nThey continued to contact me using phone calls and automated dialer systems after being instructed to stop. They failed to correct the account status or provide any accounting or validation. \n\nIllegal Repossession Attempt On the morning of XX/XX/year> at approximately XXXX XXXX, Regional Acceptance hired XXXX XXXX XXXX to repossess my vehicle, despite : My account being formally disputed, My demand for cessation of all collection activity, and A pending Pennsylvania Attorney General investigation.\n\nThe tow operator arrived in the early morning darkness, triggering my home security system and forcing my partner and me outside in freezing weather. I informed the driver that : My loan was paid in full, I had an open AG complaint, I had just returned from the XXXX  and was not medically well. \n\nAfter reviewing my documentation and contacting his supervisor, the tow operator refused to take my car, stating that he did not want to \" be involved in a legal battle. '' The vehicle was left in my possession. \n\nThis was a wrongful and illegal repossession attempt. \n\nMedical Harm and Work Disruption As a direct result of this event, I experienced : Severe XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  and crying XXXX XXXX destabilization I was forced to : Remain home with a XXXX XXXX monitor, Cancel a timesensitive work assignment involving ADA compliance audits in XXXX XXXX, and Seek additional medical evaluation, resulting in new medical expenses. \n\nNature of Harm Emotional XXXX  Physical/medical harm Economic harm Professional harm Ongoing XXXX  related to credit, vehicle, and safety What I Am Requesting as Resolution I request that the CFPB require Regional Acceptance / Truist to : Provide written confirmation that my auto loan is paid in full and the account is closed. \nImmediately release the vehicle lien and provide title.\n\nProvide a full accounting of payments and refund all overpayments.\n\nPermanently cease all collection and contact activity.\n\nCorrect all inaccurate credit bureau reporting.\n\nProvide a written explanation for the wrongful repossession order.\n\nCompensate me for medical costs, work disruption, and damages caused by this illegal conduct.\n\nSupporting Documents Available Certified dispute & demand letter dated XX/XX/year> Pennsylvania Attorney General complaint and acknowledgment Notice of Right to Cure Default dated XX/XX/year> Ring camera video of repossession attempt Medical documentation from XXXX  and followup care Witness statements ( tow operator and partner ) I certify that the information in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. \n\nSignature : XXXX XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/year>","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-09T13:42:12.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"16510","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17869355","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-12-09T13:12:26.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Summary : Attempted to get original loan notice and <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> from Regional Acceptance/Truist for 6 months, all while making <em>payments</em>, past my last <em>payment</em> due date.\n\nAttempted to make loan <em>payments</em> and creditor would not accept <em>payments</em>, including them disconnecting the call, multiple times. \n\nIn XXXX of 2025 I solicited the assistance of XXXX  XXXX XXXX | complaint XXXX ( including original loan documents, <em>payment</em> <em>history</em> )."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[15.702393,"17869355"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10266396","_score":15.490977,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I Demand Equifax & XXXX XXXX XXXX to completely delete the illegal collections that have been reporting to my credit profile. \nXXXX XXXX HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ME THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO VALIDATE, not Verify... VALIDATE this Collections Account. \nI was never notified of this collection. Furthermore, I do not believe this debt is accurate at all. Under the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, I have the right to request and receive validation of the debt and you failed to provide me with the following within 30 days : : Therefore, this account must be deleted immediately or I will begin litigation with both Equifax and XXXX XXXX XXXX Information The Collections Agency Failed To Provide : 1 ) An explanation of what this alleged account balance is for.\n\n2 ) A complete Audit Trail calculation of this balance, including the complete payment history on this account, so I have proof that the amount is correct.\n\n3 ) Documentation that shows I agreed to pay this debt with my signature and documentation shows I gave you permission to have my information and paperwork showing I gave you authorization to report this to my credit report. No consent to you having my information and unauthorized use of my social security number is identity theft and you will be reported for such.\n\n4 ) The Agreement that grants you authority to collect on this alleged debt.\n\n5 ) A copy of your state license, including license number that gives you rights to collect in my state.\n\n6. The purchase agreement along with identity verification provided at the time of purchase 7. ( Swear under penalty of perjury you were present during the alleged debt ) 8. ( Demand You provide Chain of Custody for account to ensure the financing and hand to hand transfers is correct ) 9. ( Master Bill Of Sale ) ****** Reporting information that you know to be inaccurate or failing to report information correctly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \nAlso you have committed the following FDCPA Violations you are sending deceptive forms making false belief that I owe you.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. I am not participating in the collection of this alleged debt. \nStop contacting me about this or any other matter you have. Cease and Desist ASAP, except to provide me with accurate validation of this debt by U.S. mail only, not the same insufficient docs you already sent. Delete this unverified and inaccurate account from my credit report immediately.\n\nI also submitted this letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), My State Attorney General Office and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to have confirmation of proof in case I needed to proceed with litigation. \nI already gave you 20 days to respond and you failed to do so therefore, this collections must be removed from my credit profile immediately or my lawyer & I will seek Monetary compensation damages for the violations you already committed. \nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-27T18:42:29.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10266396","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-09-27T18:29:42.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, I have the right to request and receive validation of the debt and you failed to <em>provide</em> me with the following within 30 days : : Therefore, this account must be deleted immediately or I will begin litigation with both Equifax and XXXX XXXX XXXX Information The Collections Agency Failed To <em>Provide</em> : 1 ) An explanation of what this alleged account <em>balance</em> is for.\n\n2 ) A complete <em>Audit</em> Trail calculation of this <em>balance</em>, including the complete <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>"]},"sort":[15.490977,"10266396"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10267279","_score":15.478923,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I Demand Equifax & XXXX XXXX XXXX to completely delete the illegal collections that have been reporting to my credit profile. \nXXXX XXXX HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ME THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO VALIDATE, not Verify... VALIDATE this Collections Account. \nI was never notified of this collection. Furthermore, I do not believe this debt is accurate at all. Under the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, I have the right to request and receive validation of the debt and you failed to provide me with the following within 30 days : : Therefore, this account must be deleted immediately or I will begin litigation with both Equifax and XXXX XXXX XXXX Information The Collections Agency Failed To Provide : 1 ) An explanation of what this alleged account balance is for.\n\n2 ) A complete Audit Trail calculation of this balance, including the complete payment history on this account, so I have proof that the amount is correct.\n\n3 ) Documentation that shows I agreed to pay this debt with my signature and documentation shows I gave you permission to have my information and paperwork showing I gave you authorization to report this to my credit report. No consent to you having my information and unauthorized use of my social security number is identity theft and you will be reported for such.\n\n4 ) The Agreement that grants you authority to collect on this alleged debt.\n\n5 ) A copy of your state license, including license number that gives you rights to collect in my state.\n\n6. The purchase agreement along with identity verification provided at the time of purchase 7. ( Swear under penalty of perjury you were present during the alleged debt ) 8. ( Demand You provide Chain of Custody for account to ensure the financing and hand to hand transfers is correct ) 9. ( Master Bill Of Sale ) XXXX Reporting information that you know to be inaccurate or failing to report information correctly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \nAlso you have committed the following FDCPA Violations you are sending deceptive forms making false belief that I owe you.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. I am not participating in the collection of this alleged debt. \nStop contacting me about this or any other matter you have. Cease and Desist ASAP, except to provide me with accurate validation of this debt by U.S. mail only, not the same insufficient docs you already sent. Delete this unverified and inaccurate account from my credit report immediately.\n\nI also submitted this letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), My State Attorney General Office and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to have confirmation of proof in case I needed to proceed with litigation. \nI already gave you 20 days to respond and you failed to do so therefore, this collections must be removed from my credit profile immediately or my lawyer & I will seek Monetary compensation damages for the violations you already committed. \nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-27T18:42:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10267279","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-09-27T18:42:39.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, I have the right to request and receive validation of the debt and you failed to <em>provide</em> me with the following within 30 days : : Therefore, this account must be deleted immediately or I will begin litigation with both Equifax and XXXX XXXX XXXX Information The Collections Agency Failed To <em>Provide</em> : 1 ) An explanation of what this alleged account <em>balance</em> is for.\n\n2 ) A complete <em>Audit</em> Trail calculation of this <em>balance</em>, including the complete <em>payment</em> <em>history</em>"]},"sort":[15.478923,"10267279"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":288,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":288}]}},"product":{"doc_count":288,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":162,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":162}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":63,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":63}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":38,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":23},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":5},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":6},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1},{"key":"USDA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":288,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":93,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":66},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":16},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":8},{"key":"Information is missing that should be on the report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":64,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":53},{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":5},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":4},{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":41,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":38},{"key":"Report provided to employer without your written authorization","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","doc_count":21,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem getting your report or credit score","doc_count":21}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":17,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":9},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":6},{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":6},{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":6},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":4},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":2},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":4},{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":2},{"key":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","doc_count":1},{"key":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":2},{"key":"Need information about your loan balance or loan terms","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":2},{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Communication tactics","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1},{"key":"Indicated you were committing crime by not paying debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received unwanted marketing or advertising","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Denied request to lower payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":288,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":283},{"key":"No","doc_count":5}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":288,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":165},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":123}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":288,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":288}]}},"company":{"doc_count":288,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":77},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":73},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":58},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":5},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":4},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","doc_count":3},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"United Shore Financial Services, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"ATG Credit, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"American First Finance, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Capio Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Cedars Business Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Continental Services Group, Inc. d/b/a ConServe","doc_count":1},{"key":"ERC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EdFinancial Services","doc_count":1},{"key":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIDELITY CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"First Federal Credit Control, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Hunt & Henriques","doc_count":1},{"key":"I.C. System, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kikoff Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Klarna AB","doc_count":1},{"key":"LJ Ross Associates","doc_count":1},{"key":"LoanCare, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Credit Systems,Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Overland Bond & Investment Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"R & B Corporation of Virginia","doc_count":1},{"key":"RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"Southwest Credit Systems, L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"The CBE Group, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"World Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"World Omni Financial Corp.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Yamaha Motor Finance Corporation USA","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":288,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":44},{"key":"CA","doc_count":24},{"key":"MO","doc_count":24},{"key":"NY","doc_count":23},{"key":"PA","doc_count":23},{"key":"SC","doc_count":21},{"key":"DE","doc_count":16},{"key":"FL","doc_count":15},{"key":"GA","doc_count":15},{"key":"TN","doc_count":11},{"key":"LA","doc_count":9},{"key":"MD","doc_count":9},{"key":"VA","doc_count":8},{"key":"WA","doc_count":8},{"key":"IL","doc_count":5},{"key":"NC","doc_count":5},{"key":"IN","doc_count":4},{"key":"KY","doc_count":4},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":3},{"key":"OK","doc_count":3},{"key":"UT","doc_count":3},{"key":"AR","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"WI","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":288,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":151},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":7},{"key":"Company can't verify or dispute the facts in the complaint","doc_count":2},{"key":"Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":288,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":18}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16469162,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[15.478923,"10267279"],"3":[14.284065,"7049862"],"4":[13.11923,"7595352"],"5":[11.905165,"16604303"],"6":[11.386612,"6566288"],"7":[10.451786,"10273616"],"8":[9.499722,"14975692"]}}}