{"took":243,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":23,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8750133","_score":23.531164,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/24, I have a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which I got paid. Cash of XXXXXXXX XXXX, I stopped by chase bank in XXXX XXXX XXXX which is the bank. I save around XXXX XXXX to deposit the money of {$5000.00} into my account for payment and other expenses I owe, I use my ATM card and deposited the money, after I deposited the money, the receipt from the ATM gave me show no indication of the amount of money deposited into my account but shows an error that the ATM is broken and do not accept cash show no indication that the money was deposited into my account, either I took a screenshot which indicate the ATM machine is broken. The amount of money was not registered into my account either. I called Chase bank claim department and with the number on the receipt I reported the situation if they can look into the camera and the evidence and the screenshot that I have to deposit XXXX XXXX cash but but the ATM is broken and error and did not indicate the amount of money into my account the claim number was XXXX, they they refunded XXXX but later on after four days went back into my account and took XXXX XXXX XXXX from my account since then I have tried calling Chase Bank claim center to file a new claim. Talk to the supervisor try to resolve if they can put the money back into my account to know avail I spoke to XXXX XXXX and branch manager, XXXX XXXX, and all they said they have closed my case, and they have exhausted all the investigation towards this matter and kept my money. I feel like somebody need to help me, but they have denied all my claim and my evidence that I provided to them and still did not refund me my money back, please I need help because I have just a small business to Survive And And I think they can check the cameras the receipt I showed them and the amount of money they retrieve from the ATM after I reported the incident Thanks XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-17T19:43:08.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60446","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8750133","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2024-04-12T02:22:38.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I save around XXXX XXXX to deposit the <em>money</em> of {$5000.00} into my account for payment and other expenses I owe, I use my ATM card and deposited the <em>money</em>, after I deposited the <em>money</em>, the receipt from the ATM gave me show no indication of the <em>amount</em> of <em>money</em> deposited into my account but shows an <em>error</em> that the ATM is <em>broken</em> and do not accept cash show no indication that the <em>money</em> was deposited into my account, either I took a screenshot which <em>indicate</em> the ATM machine is <em>broken</em>."]},"sort":[23.531164,"8750133"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6737659","_score":11.726547,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/2023 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing because Citibank closed a regular checking account I recently opened with them without notice and will not return XXXX that was in the account to me for at least sixty to ninety days. Additionally, my last conversation with bank representatives cast doubt on both the method they would be using to return these funds as well as the amount that would be returned.\n\nIn short, although I have spent many hours talking with various Citibank representatives, I can not get a straight answer from Citibank as to why they did this or exactly how I am going to get my money back.\n\nAdditionally, this money represents all of my liquid savings and not having access to it for several months is a hardship.\n\nCitibanks only communication with me was after the account was closed in the form of a standardized email stating that my account had been closed because I had broken their user agreement. This is false.\n\nThis account was new and I have had only a few very standard transactions with Citibank.\n\nAt first, Citibank representatives said that a paycheck from the XXXX XXXX where I work was flagged and that this was the issue. Later conversations, however, showed that this check had cleared. The new reason given was that there was an issue with my initial deposit with Citibank from my old bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX \nHowever, any issue with this deposit seems to have been caused by an error on Citibanks part as documented in both their records as well as in the final statement from my previous bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX the bank from which I made the initial deposit into this account. \nCopies of both bank statements are attached for your review. \nAccording to records from XXXX XXXX XXXX  after I made my first deposit into the new Citibank account a transfer of {$12000.00} on XX/XX/2023 Citibank returned the entire deposit to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/2023 for some unknown reason. \nThe following day I noticed that my balance at Citibank was XXXX and assumed the transfer hadnt gone through. There was nothing to indicate anything was pending and there had been no communication from either bank, so I made the transfer request again on XX/XX/2023. This time the transfer worked and everything seemed fine for the next few weeks. \nThis activity is all reflected in the attached final statement from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nCitibanks records differ from XXXX XXXX XXXX and seem to reveal they made an error by initially crediting me with a double deposit on XX/XX/2023 something clearly not reflected XXXX XXXX XXXX records which show I made exactly one deposit to Citibank on that date for {$12000.00}. \nCitibank then lists a debit of {$12000.00} from something called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) on XX/XX/2023 clearly impossible as XXXX XXXX XXXX received the return of my initial deposit two days earlier on XX/XX/2023. \nIt was only after seeing a XXXX balance in my account that I made a second request for a transfer on XX/XX/2023 as reflected in the XXXX XXXX XXXX  statement. \nI then closed out my account at XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nShortly thereafter, Citibank closed my account without warning or valid reason and is holding my funds for an unreasonable amount of time. This extreme action was unnecessary as Citibank could have frozen the account for a short time and contacted me and a brief investigation would have cleared up this matter in a short period of time. Instead, Citibank took actions which have prevented me from accessing all of my liquid savings for a long period of time, causing me great hardship. \nI would be grateful if your agency could help me sort this out and possibly convince Citibank to release my funds ASAP, the total of which should be XXXX in the form of a certified check. \n\nThanks for your help. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-24T01:19:26.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10128","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6737659","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-03-24T00:30:19.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additionally, this <em>money</em> represents all of my liquid savings and not having access to it for several months is a hardship.\n\nCitibanks only communication with me was after the account was closed in the form of a standardized email stating that my account had been closed because I had <em>broken</em> their user agreement. This is false.\n\nThis account was new and I have had only a few very standard transactions with Citibank."]},"sort":[11.726547,"6737659"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6331284","_score":11.600539,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"After reviewing my two Billing Statements Accounts that I currently have open with Capital One together with extensively reading both the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) and the Security Exchange Act of 1934, both of which this company claims to uphold according to their XXXX and XXXX holdings. It is clear to me that not only is Language Fraud being committed on me as a consumer, but Security Fraud is too. I have sent a billing dispute request via certified mail using the US Postal Service on XX/XX/XXXX which was well in the time frame of 60 days that the US Code allows stating My billing disputes/Errors which are as follows for both accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX Treatment of credit balances. \n1.When a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created in connection with a transaction ( through transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, through rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or through amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of a consumer ), the creditor shall : ( a ) Credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumer 's account ; ( b ) Refund any part of the remaining credit balance, upon the written request of the consumer; and ( c ) Make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order, or credit to a deposit account of the consumer, any part of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than 6 months, except that no further action is required if the consumer 's current location is not known to the creditor and can not be traced through the consumer 's last known address or telephone number. \n*Capital one has not in good faith done any of the above even after my written letter requesting them to send my securities to me and not keep them. \n\n2. 15 USC 1666b ( a ) Time to make payments A creditor { Capital One } may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date.\n\n3. CFR 1026.13 ( d ) Billing error resolution.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n*Capital One has broken this by threaten to send my account to a third party debt collector, and they have since shut off access to my credit cards and also reported negatively to at least one agency that I know of.\n\n4. Per 15 USC 1666 ( e ) Effect of noncompliance with requirements by creditor Any creditor { Capital One } who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or section 1666a of this title forfeits any right to collect from the obligor { XXXX XXXX } the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ) of this section, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed {$50.00}.\n\n*Credit one has not sent any thing I have asked for of them other then billing statements.\n\n5. Per 15 USC 1666 ( ii ) send a written explanation or clarification to the obligor, after having conducted an investigation, setting forth to the extent applicable the reasons why the creditor believes the account of the obligor was correctly shown in the statement and, upon request of the obligor, provide copies of documentary evidence of the obligors indebtedness. In the case of a billing error where the obligor alleges that the creditors billing statement reflects goods not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of the transaction, a creditor may not construe such amount to be correctly shown unless he determines that such goods were actually delivered, mailed, or otherwise sent to the obligor and provides the obligor with a statement of such determination.\n\n*This step was not granted at all As I stated above I have given Capital One more then 2 months to respond to me and handle this situation internally without me having to report this to the FTC or the CFPB and if need be go to Federal Court due to the language and security fraud being committed by this company. This time In accordance with the law instead of sending yet another letter Certified Mail due to the nature of it involving securities I sent another letter out today XXXX Registered Mail via the United States Postal Service, I will also be sending a copy of this letter to their CEO, their Trustee, the Law Department and also the FTC until this matter is handled in a timely fashion.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-16T23:35:27.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11236","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6331284","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-12-16T22:26:46.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFR 1026.13 ( d ) Billing <em>error</em> resolution.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an <em>amount</em> or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed <em>amount</em> or related finance or other charges."]},"sort":[11.600539,"6331284"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2831279","_score":11.143706,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX I called American Credit Acceptance Corporation to establish a payment arrangement to bring my the delinquent loan current. The young lady who was setting up the arrangement was setting up two payments. One payment for {$240.00} for XX/XX/XXXX and additional payment for {$390.00} scheduled to come out on XX/XX/XXXX these two payments would bring me current and the next payment would be due in XX/XX/XXXX. The young lady then provided me with two confirmation numbers, I questioned how she was able to do that for a scheduled payment and she advised that is how their system works. I was skeptical but took her word for it. One hour later I received an alert that both payments had cleared my account, I was furious and called American Credit Acceptance and spoke with a supervisor who advised he would listen to the call and contact me the next day. I advised it is the holiday and I needed those funds back immediately. He advised they would overnight if the call revealed I was correct. He never contacted me so I called back and there were notes on my account that indicated I was correct, so they agreed to refund the money, two day overnight which meant i would not receive it till XX/XX/XXXX. I was furious but there was nothing I could do. In the month of XX/XX/XXXX I noticed that the payment they were supposed to take per the agreement was still in my account so on XX/XX/XXXX I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX and was advised that my account was 98 days delinquent, I could not understand why. I was advised that the pay arrangement had broken, due to the fact that the young lady took two payments in error, they never reset the arrangement. I advised I would pay the agreed amount over the phone and the representative said he could not honor the original agreement, so I asked to speak with someone who could as this was not my error. He advised no one to speak with at the time, so I asked if I should call back in the morning and he said yes. So on XX/XX/XXXX I called in and asked for a manager, I spoke with XXXX I believe and she advised that they have been trying to contact me. When I asked when and how, she stated we have been calling you a couple of times a day for the last few weeks. I asked did you leave a message for me to contact you? And she stated no. So I asked how would I know that you called, when the name of your company does not show on my called ID? It's just a toll free number. As the conversation went on I was still trying to get someone at American Credit Acceptance to honor the agreement, XXXX refused as well. As we were talking I realize that the repossession company had picked up my vehicle. I was completely outraged, this was not my error and I did everything I could to rectify it. XXXX tried to lay blame on me again, and advised me I would need {$1100.00} ( 2 payments XXXX ) to redeem my vehicle. Additionally I had to pay XXXX to the two yard for admin fees and my vehicle was there for less than 3 hours. American Credit Acceptance Corporation are not knowledgeable about the FDCPA or the rules the govern debt collection. I have tried reasoning with them to resolve this and they simply refuse, their organization needs to be audited not only in their collection but lending practices as well, it boarders on predatory.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-03-02T19:15:59.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"454XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2831279","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","date_received":"2018-03-02T18:40:40.000Z","state":"OH","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":["I was advised that the pay arrangement had <em>broken</em>, due to the fact that the young lady took two payments in <em>error</em>, they never reset the arrangement. I advised I would pay the agreed <em>amount</em> over the phone and the representative said he could not honor the original agreement, so I asked to speak with someone who could as this was not my <em>error</em>. He advised no one to speak with at the time, so I asked if I should call back in the morning and he said yes."]},"sort":[11.143706,"2831279"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5623084","_score":11.068525,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX, XX/XX/2022 Reference case no. XXXX Bank of America, N.A. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Card Balance Transfer Funds Dispute From XXXX Credit Card ending in XXXX Bank of America XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tx XXXX According to the accompanying evidence, Bank of America has been notified of the situation detailed below, issuing an unsatisfactory response under the reference indicated above, when the events described below : On XX/XX/2022, I made through XXXX with its XXXX XXXX XXXX product, a credit card under my name whos last XXXX digits are XXXX, a transfer of the balance on my Bank of America credit card in the amount of {$5400.00}. \n\nAccording to the XXXX account statement for the month of XXXX, dated XX/XX/2022, the charge corresponding to the total amount of {$5600.00} is reflected, broken down as follows : {$5400.00} for the balance transferred from Bank of America plus {$270.00} for a transfer Fee in accordance with the offer granted to me as its owner. \n\nHowever, due to an error in the numbering of the account under which XXXX made the payment of the funds to Bank of America ( to the wrong number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which is why presumably the payment of the balance corresponding to my credit card account XXXX Bank of America ending in XXXX. ( Correct number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) - After notifying XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America, I received a response communication from them under reference No. XXXX on XX/XX/2022, where they indicate verbatim : We would like to inform you that the payment was made with an invalid account number and the payment was rejected and returned to the originating account However, they do not report any electronic reference that attests to the completion of such return to the original account. \n\nAs verified by the Account XXXX for the month of XXXX from XXXX corresponding to my credit card that ends in XXXX, the balance of the transfer of funds made to Bank of America still does not reflect the refund mentioned by that institution. \n\nAfter receiving the response from Bank of America and observing that XXXX did not reflect the return of the transfer amount, I addressed a claim to XXXX requesting a rectification. I have received a response from XXXX on this dispute on XX/XX/2022, under case No. XXXX, for which they specifically report the following : We do not observe that Bank of America has XXXX the balance transfer funds to us. You will need to contact Bank of America to apply for the credit. \n\nIn such a situation, it is evident that Bank of America has not presented me with an efficient electronic or physical proof that shows the definitive return of the amount paid by XXXX, nor the crediting of the amount to my correct credit card account number ending in XXXX. \n\nIt should be noted that, from XX/XX/XXXX to the present date, XXXX ( XXXX ) months or XXXX ( XXXX ) calendar days have elapsed without Bank of America showing that it has returned the funds that it acknowledges having received in a non-existent account from XXXX has not credited the amount in my correct account that ends in XXXX to which the funds were actually directed in order to cancel the balance of the aforementioned credit card. \n\nHowever, as reflected on my credit card statements ending in XXXX from Bank of America, I have been charged interest on the principal balance due XXXX Charges per fee {$28.00} Interest {$90.00} XXXX Interest {$100.00} XXXX Charges per fee {$39.00} Interest {$98.00} Now, since more than 60 days have passed without Bank of America resolving the aforementioned return of the amount to XXXX or crediting the transferred balance to my correct account ending in XXXX, despite being notified and having exhausted all means to solve in my capacity as a user and account holder, making Bank of America fully aware of the facts, such a situation has directly harmed me not only in the amount of money that is missing in my account, but it has also created damages in lost opportunities and payments of bills that my family depended on. I now present a debit balance on both accounts for the same amount, despite having done everything possible to resolve this situation. \n\nTherefore, I proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection laws of the State of XXXX, namely, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( I enclose the proof of my due diligence as a consumer before the CFBP ) and the Code of XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( agreements ), XXXX and XXXX, which protects consumers against harmful conduct by banks, to be by urging Bank of America XXXX have a return check issued for funds sent by XXXX XXXX to my credit card without further delay, sparing me further damages generated so far due to its omission or failing that, showing evidence of having already done so. \n\nYou are hereby further advised that this letter also constitutes the filing of our client 's claims against you under Chapter XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and other potentially applicable laws that subject you to additional liability for attorneys ' fees incurred in connection with our client 's claim. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-01T15:33:13.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"77084","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5623084","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-06-01T14:51:29.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with balance transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["According to the XXXX account statement for the month of XXXX, dated XX/XX/2022, the charge corresponding to the total <em>amount</em> of {$5600.00} is reflected, <em>broken</em> down as follows : {$5400.00} for the balance transferred from Bank of America plus {$270.00} for a transfer Fee in accordance with the offer granted to me as its owner."]},"sort":[11.068525,"5623084"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3395275","_score":11.057491,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"My family utilized the Costco Visa Card through Citibank for years. We generally put all of our annual expenses on the card which totaled large amounts of money per year. Due to personal reasons, we chose to close the card. I visited the website and it indicated that I could call a phone number or go to a branch to close the account. I tried to cancel the card, unsuccessfully on the phone so on XX/XX/19 I opted to go to the Citibank branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX. I was informed by the teller and then the Assistant Branch Manager, XXXX XXXX ( NMLS ID : XXXX ) that I was unable to close the account at the branch with an associate, but that I could sit at one of their empty cubicles and utilize their phone to close my account. I was shocked at this complete lack of customer service but I humbly sat down and tried to close my account for over 20 minutes on the phone. The phone service was a very low volume. The representative was difficult not only to hear but to understand as he spoke quite quickly in broken English and it was muffled. I kept receiving information about a {$100.00} XXXX gift card because \" I was such a good customer ''. I had/have no interest in this XXXX card, I simply wanted to close my account. After 20 minutes, the representative did not give me a confirmation number or his employee number. The call was then dropped by Citibank. \nI went back to the Teller and told him that I had been unsuccessful in cancelling my card and that I needed assistance. He said, \" We can have someone sit with you in the cubicle while you make the call again. '' I stated that I was not going to do that. It was absolute avoidance of allowing me to cancel the card. I stated that I may need to call the police if the institution was not going to assist me to cancel the card because I was unable to resolve the issue myself and I wanted to cancel a financial instrument. At that point, the Branch Manager, XXXX XXXX ( NMLS ID : XXXX ) brought me to his desk. After 2 minutes of tap/tap and a phone call, Mr. XXXX informed me that my card had been cancelled. He was unable to give me a confirmation number to support this claim, he was unable to email me a letter stating the account had been closed. I was simply told that I should go by his word. I took his business card and noted that he had spoken with \" XXXX '' on his phone at whatever internal number he called and that he stated my account had been closed. I noted the time of XXXX. It was not until one week later that I received a letter in the mail stating that this credit card had, in fact, been closed. It is my assertion that Citibank put up very strong barriers to cancelling this credit card. Ms. XXXX XXXX shamed and humiliated me, having me sit at an empty cubicle for almost half an hour to struggle ( unsuccessfully ) to close my credit card account. She made no apologies and actually suggested that an associate sit with me to 'babysit ' me while I 'tried again ' on their phones. She stated that the website saying one could go to the Branch to cancel the card was an error. This is false advertising. Mr. XXXX accomplished in 2 minutes what I could not accomplish in 2 hours and I told him that. I also asked for Ms. XXXX 's card and I indicated that I would be filing a complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-04T00:18:08.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92604","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3395275","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2019-10-03T23:44:29.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Can't close your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We generally put all of our annual expenses on the card which totaled large <em>amounts</em> of <em>money</em> per year. Due to personal reasons, we chose to close the card. I visited the website and it <em>indicated</em> that I could call a phone number or go to a branch to close the account. I tried to cancel the card, unsuccessfully on the phone so on XX/XX/19 I opted to go to the Citibank branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX."]},"sort":[11.057491,"3395275"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4404949","_score":10.3118105,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Summary Tried to refinance in XX/XX/XXXX. Discontinued auto-payments to mortgage holder ( i.e. XXXX  ). Tried to make a number of mortgage payments manually over the phone using my bank account and the branch routing number. Two out of three payments failed. Mortgage holder informed me my bank was refusing to make the payments. Contacted my bank. They stated that the use of the branch routing number was incorrect and that I needed to use he a special routing number for electronic payments which neither myself or or the mortgage holder had any way of knowing. Gave mortgage holder correct routing number and XX/XX/XXXX payment was finally made on XX/XX/XXXX but not before I was declared delinquent and it was reported to the credit bureaus damaging my credit score and preventing refinancing. Mortgage holder will also no longer accept phone payments, personal checks, or internet payments. Will only accept certified checks which is a huge expensive time consuming hassle.. Contacted mortgage holder. They were willing to reverse negative reporting and reinstate my payments methods but would only do so with a letter from my bank ( Suntrust ) explaining why the payments were late. Contacted Suntrust. Suntrust refused to provide me with a letter or let me to speak to the branch manager and began claiming I placed a stop payment on the account for the mortgage holder on XX/XX/XXXX. They were contacted on XX/XX/XXXX to stop the auto-pay and not to place a stop order for the mortgage holder on my checking account. So they are either lying or there was a miscommunication or a misunderstanding but they will not clarify this and steadfastly maintain I am the one at fault. Finally contacted the local Suntrust Branch manager. He gave me the same story as the branch staff and refused to provide a letter claiming the stop payment was by my request and they were not at fault. This ( stop payment ) is believed to be a fiction invented by the branch staff to avoid responsibility and certain retribution by Truist upper management and to avoid having to do anything to help a 20 + customer at the branch. Branch manager also claimed he couldnt help me because it presented a legal issue yet no law was broken, they're not being accused of breaking the law, and they do not stand to lose any money. Its a bureaucratic error involving correct routing numbers.. This is a procedural change mandated by Truist when they bought out Suntrust but unfortunately didnt pass it on to anybody. When the branch manager was asked why the third payment went through on XX/XX/XXXX for the same payee using a different routing number on the same account with a stop payment in place he could not provide an answer other than stating both routing numbers should have worked yet the branch routing number obviously did not when used on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSuntrust refuses to take responsibility for their error and do any extra work to help me repair the damage to my credit score. Even if it was my fault why wouldn't they help me anyway? As previously mentioned its a simple bureaucratic error, they wont lose any money, and haven't broken any law. Shows you what contempt they have for their customers. A global banking giant with billions in assets wont even write a simple 5 minute letter indicating it was a routing number issue that prevented payment and help me repair my credit score, save a couple hundred buck a month on my mortgage, and not have to pay {$38000.00} in interest. They would rather blame me and do nothing which is a lot easier and less risky for their precious banking careers. Meanwhile, my chances of refinancing have been destroyed, my excellent credit score has been demolished, and I have to jump through hoops backwards to make my mortgage payments now. \n\nDETAILED INFO Since XXXX I have made my mortgage payments to XXXX XXXX XXXX and Reporting ( i.e. XXXX  ) through my Suntrust ( now Truist ) personal checking account # # # # # # # # # # # # # via auto-pay and never missed a payment in 17 years. | In XXXX of XXXX I attempted to take advantage of the current low interest rates and refinance my mortgage thus lowering my monthly mortgage payment and avoid having to pay {$38000.00} in interest. | During the refinance process I discontinued using auto-pay to make monthly payments to XXXX in early XXXX of XXXX and began making my mortgage payments manually using the phone and internet. | I attempted to make my XX/XX/XXXX mortgage payment in the amount of {$1100.00} on XX/XX/XXXX by phone ( conf. # XXXX XXXX but the payment was subsequently reversed by Suntrust Bank though it was unclear why at the time. XXXX XXXX contacted me by mail and by recorded message several days later notifying me that the XX/XX/XXXX mortgage payment had not been made. | I then attempted to make the payment a second time on XX/XX/XXXX but again the payment did not go through. XXXX XXXX subsequently contacted me days later by mail and notified me that my bank was refusing to make the payment. ( i.e. PAYMENT STOPPED ) I then contacted Suntrust about the issue on XX/XX/XXXX and the phone representative informed me that XXXX was using an incorrect routing number of XXXX which corresponds to the local bank branch where personal checking account is located. | They further informed me that the correct routing number to use for electronic payments ( i.e. phone debits ) was XXXX. XXXX Unfortunately I had no way of knowing that a special routing number had to be used until repeated attempts to make the payment had failed and the mortgage holder could notify me of the issue by the notoriously slow process of US Mail. |When XXXX  was supplied with the correct routing number the payments went through normally on XX/XX/XXXX7. | Suntrust claims that I placed a stop payment on my account for XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX which is why the payments were not made. XXXX This is incorrect and the real cause is due to the routing number. XXXX I contacted Suntrust on XX/XX/XXXX to inquire about discontinuing auto-pay but I was specifically told by the customer service rep at that time that they could not do this and I would have to contact XXXX  to discontinue auto-pay. XXXX This was subsequently done on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX If a stop payment for XXXX  really had been made and was in place on my account then the third payment I made to XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX would not have been processed yet it was so how could that happen if there is a stop payment in place for XXXX? | The use of an incorrect routing number is the real issue and Suntrust has no evidence to back up their claim of a stop payment request. XXXX Also how would I pay my mortgage and why would I continue making payments to XXXX through Suntrust if a stop payment was in place.? | The claims by the local Suntrust branch that I placed a stop payment on XXXX  are false and were created by the branch staff to shift blame for their routing number mix up onto me and thus avoid retribution by Suntrust upper management for making an error and avoid having to do any extra work in handling this issue. | Its a lot easier for somebody to simply claim I was at fault and do nothing rather than take responsibility for the error and have to do extra work in assisting me straighten this out. | At first the branch staff also refused to put me in touch with the manager hoping I would go away after gaslighting me for 2 weeks straight claiming it was all my fault but when I finally did reach the branch manager he gave me the same story he got from the branch staff. | He claimed that my first two attempts at payment had failed because of the stop payment I placed on the account for XXXX, yet when I asked him how a third payment could have been made successfully with a different routing number using the same account even though a stop payment was in place on the payee ( XXXX  ) he didn't really have an answer. | I then spoke to a supervisor at XXXX  since the customer service reps were useless to explain the situation but was informed that though XXXX would consider retracting the derogatory credit reporting and reinstate my ability to pay by phone and internet they would only do so with a letter from Suntrust explaining why the payments were late. | Unfortunately Suntrust, now Truist, has categorically refused to provide me with this information claiming they cant for legal reasons, yet its a simple bureaucratic error, they stand to lose no money, and no law has been broken. | So basically the local branch refused to help me out even though theyre at fault and stand to lose nothing and just blamed me so they wouldnt have to do anything. | They werent interested in helping me repair the damage done to my credit score but they did offer to help me seek refinancing through Suntrust. | Thanks Suntrust. | Since the mortgage payment was late my mortgage holder declared me delinquent and took a number of automatic actions which included ; 1 ) They will no longer allow phone or internet payments ( until they get a letter from Suntrust verifying the routing number issue ) 2 ) I can no longer use a personal check to pay the mortgage and must send them a certified check every month for an entire YEAR or until they get a letter from Suntrust verifying the routing number issue ) 3 ) They have reported me as delinquent to the three major credit bureaus seriously damaging my credit score but have indicated they will withdraw the negative reporting information if they can receive a letter from Suntrust verifying the routing number issue ) 4 ) XXXX  will not allow me to reinstate auto-payments with Suntrust. | So all that for a SINGLE missed payment that was due to a bureaucratic mixup over routing numbers on the part of my bank. | Suntrust will also not provide me with proof of their claims that I am at fault but steadfastly stand by their claim. | In addition my chances of being refinanced now or in the future have been destroyed and I must now make time consuming special arrangements for an entire year to make my payments. XXXX XXXX has indicated they can reverse the abusive actions they took but not without a letter from my bank ( Suntrust ) explaining why the payment was missed which Suntrust refuses to do and I am now caught in the middle between them. | One wants to punish me with harsh draconian measures for a simple bureaucratic error that resulted in a single missed payment in 16 years ( or 1 out of 192 payments ) while the other wants to blame me for the error to avoid accepting any responsibility whatsoever or having to lift a finger to assist a 20 year customer repair his credit history. | The effects to me from this bureaucratic and communication mix-up are serious, unwarranted and completely out of proportion to what happened based on my payment history and credit score which was not taken into consideration.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-03T12:54:42.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20874","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4404949","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-05-25T19:29:05.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Suntrust refuses to take responsibility for their <em>error</em> and do any extra work to help me repair the damage to my credit score. Even if it was my fault why wouldn't they help me anyway? As previously mentioned its a simple bureaucratic <em>error</em>, they wont lose any <em>money</em>, and haven't <em>broken</em> any law. Shows you what contempt they have for their customers."]},"sort":[10.3118105,"4404949"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2996951","_score":9.660681,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Habitat has always had a problem with resident mortgages. When entering the program they indicated we had to fix our credit. Of which I completed prior to being chosen for my home to be a built. Once my home was built Habitat employee 's asked for more money and proceeded to take payment. I then found out they do not report my payments to the credit bureau and have now forbidden us to receive monthly statements. I recieved a letter drawn up by XXXX XXXX hand delivered on a Friday evening at my resident. XXXX, took over XXXX XXXX position after they neglected to notify resident that she passed away in XX/XX/XXXX. Per XXXX I owe {$2000.00}. I immediately contacted XXXX when I opened and read the amount. XXXX answered, I tried to explain my concerns and she kept rudely cutting me off and over talking me instead of allowing me explain my question. She became upset, I became frustrated and then she hung up on me. I called back and she would not answer. Then I drove up to the location to speak with her regarding this amount and no one would speak to me. I seen XXXX through the glass locked door, and she would not come to the door. A Habitat employee was outside and took me inside the lobby of the main branch, she then went inside to get someone but came back to tell me XXXX XXXX would not be in until next week sometime. I said ok and left. I do not owe {$2000.00}. Yes, I am late, but I pay my late fee everytime of which they never log either. I am tired of fight with them about ALL the lies, they have not upheld their end since the beginning regarding these homes. I am not the only homeowner with these issue. Some have giving Habitat the option to buy back, to walk away because of accounting issues and more money. Habitat has not fulfilled any of the contractual promises and have told us, the homeowners, that it does not pertain to them because they were not employed with Habitat prior to the date they started. My mortgage per the annual report XXXX XXXX sent out in XX/XX/XXXX is XXXX. If I pay after the XXXX there is a XXXX late fee. Our mortgage is broken down as such : mortgage principal {$230.00} + taxes, insurance {$230.00} ( estimate ). At the point of the letter I was past due {$4700.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) +XXXX ( late fee ) = {$980.00}. I mailed in a certified receipt of Request for Information Pursuant to Section 1024.36 of Regulation X on XX/XX/XXXX to Habitat for Humanity PBC. I recieved the receipt they had 5 business days to acknowledge which they did via email by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Within 10 business days they were suppose to provide the identity of and address the owner or assignee of my mortgage loan. Did not receive, and within 30 days to comply with and respond to the remainder of the request. I have yet to receive the information regarding my mortgage with Habitat for Humanity PBC. Due to Habitat of Humanity actions they have been deemed untrustworthy to many homeowners including myself. \nBeing they allocate everything in office via XXXX spread sheet it doesn't take much to offset their books and form errors. XX/XX/XXXX  Habitat had a Ransomware attack which happen during the hurricane. They never reported it to authorities. Habitat does not report to a credit bureau so we have no one to watch for these errors. Employers turnover all the time. Habitat has used my name to open accounts with XXXX XXXX XXXX  and I received a XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. Without notification to the homeowner. Habitat is a Non-interest mortgage. I went to XXXX XXXX to gain knowledge of how and why, but was sent to the woman that handled established the accounts named XXXX XXXX and she would never contact me back. Until I had to reach out to her manager this year and she asked me what am I looking for. All I want is what was promised, report to the credit bureau from day 1, a statement each month, and my XXXX XXXX forgiven on my 2nd mortgage. This is what I put in my sweat equity hours for. I paid my closing cost 11years ago and my mortgage with the late fee. I have been in my home for 11 yrs and they continue to butcher up our mortgages and do not give us solid responses. PLEASE HELP US. Being that the programs is XXXX based people overlook the underhanded activities they have done. Out of all the homes they have built, not that many own their home. Has anyone ever asked why? I have all my paperwork to back up everything I am saying. Even from the beginning of me starting the program. I have also been keeping a log alongside every check I have paid to them.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-08-20T22:47:28.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"33404","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2996951","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.","date_received":"2018-08-20T21:36:46.000Z","state":"FL","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":["When entering the program they <em>indicated</em> we had to fix our credit. Of which I completed prior to being chosen for my home to be a built. Once my home was built Habitat employee 's asked for more <em>money</em> and proceeded to take payment. I then found out they do not report my payments to the credit bureau and have now forbidden us to receive monthly statements. I recieved a letter drawn up by XXXX XXXX hand delivered on a Friday evening at my resident."]},"sort":[9.660681,"2996951"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8355133","_score":7.6109486,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Freedom Mortgage Fails to Timely and Properly Pay Property Taxes, and Manage Escrow Account, Creating Escrow Surpluses and Engaged in Creating Escrow Shortages, Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Harassment & Discrimination Against me. \n\nFreedom Mortgage from the onset of servicing this account has made nonstop errors and willful violations of RESPA until this day playing abusing the RESPA violations processes. They have a history of doing this no fines seem to be a deterrent and the Consumers Affairs and/or governing agencies need to address this matter. It is my request and/or suggestion their licenses be revoked.\n\nSee groups Exhibit 12 attached.\n\nSee Exhibits 31, 32, 33 attached. \n\nFreedom has numerous consumer complaints lodged against it nationally on the CFPBs consumer complaint database. Each such complaint is filed and cataloged in the CFPBs publicly accessible on-line database which can be accessed at the following link : http : //www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/consumer-complaints. \n\nSee Exhibits F1, F2, F3 & F4. \n\n\nI have for years now had to file numerous complaints. Spend endless amounts of time to deal with this never-ending problem that is created by Freedom Mortgage. \n\nIt started from day one when they stated to service this account. \n\nI received an erroneous letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from Freedom Mortgage a copy of letter is attached See Exhibit XXXX. \n\nI notified Freedom Mortgage of the errors on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, See emails attached Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9, Exhibit 10. \n\nI Received an email Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX see email from Freedom Mortgage it is attached See Exhibit 11 I contacted Freedom Mortgage about the correction of errors on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nI received an email Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX see email from Freedom Mortgage saying they could not move forward because a document they previously on a phone call and email said they had received it is attached was missing. See Exhibit 16. \n\nI received an email Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX see email from Freedom Mortgage saying they did not know what the pending or, what the correct mortgage payment due was, because they were without a supervisor it is attached See Exhibit 17. \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XXXX XXXX asking to please tell me the current months mortgage payment amount due see Plaintiffs email it is attached See Exhibit 19 I contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX asking them to please tell me what the current months mortgage payment amount due. And explained what the property taxes should be. And requested that the escrow surpluses be returned in accordance to RESPA 1024.17 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) ( 2 ) Surpluses. And again, requesting the authorization form see Plaintiffs emails it is attached as TAR FORM ( TAR-2516 ) \" AUTHORIZATION TO FURNISH TILA-RESPA INTEGRATED DISCLOSURES AUTHORIZATION '' See email sent attached See Exhibit 20. \n\n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX who maintained that they did not receive the alleged escrow shortage payment XXXX even though XXXX it shows on their books See Exhibit 5. A pattern that keeps reoccurring even when the Plaintiff pays any escrow shortages in full Freedom Mortgage claims that they did not receive it. \n\nThey also make false and misleading responses to CFPB and to me in an attempt to do plausible deniability one of their practice 's. I explained what the taxes should be. See Exhibit 21. \n\nFreedom Mortgage is being ran like a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization. As defined in Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 ( Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law ( United States ) 91452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970 ), and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. 19611968. \n\nI email Freedom Mortgage on XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which still had errors. See Exhibit 23. 24 I requested that Freedom Mortgage stop the numerous RESPA violations that were occurring. See Exhibit 25. \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. And explained the importance of the authorization form which still not received. Plaintiff explained that the numerous errors were exacerbating a current illness. See Exhibit 26. \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and notified them of more numerous errors occurring as well as again provided new material information as defined in 2012 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( Regulation X ) Mortgage Servicing Act. I was receiving numerous statements that were erroneous and conflicting. I received statements that were indicating that I was in default as well as double billing was occurring while in fact there was an escrow surplus. \n\nThe Mortgage payment was never late nor was there any shortage of escrow or payments. The amount paid exceeded the amount due because of the numberless errors that kept occurring and which are occurring to this day nonstop. See Exhibit 28.\n\nI provided previously and explained it to no prevail what the property taxes were as well as that there was a surplus not a shortage of escrow, that the statement billing and amounts being paid were higher than what the monthly payment should be. See Exhibit XXXX. \n\nI received a letter dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX from Freedom Mortgage after he had served notice Freedom Mortgage to cease and desist from willfully violating RESPA and to cease desist from harassment and discriminating against him as per Federal Stalking and Harassment. \n\nLaws 18 U.S. Code 2261A - Federal Stalking Laws. Freedom Mortgage letter is willfully noncomplying with the notice they were served with and have recognized. \nFreedom Mortgage has a history of harassment and discrimination. \n\nIn XXXX, the CFPB found that Freedom Mortgage had intentionally misreported HMDA data about applicants race and ethnicity. See Exhibits 31, 32, 33. \n\nI sent a response to Freedom Mortgage 's letter Dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Notifying them they now are willfully misusing Section 805 ( c ) : CEASING COMMUNICATION and now was inferring that the Plaintiff \" a consumer refuses in writing to pay debt '' to cease and desist from doing so. I again explained the errors and violations of RESPA occurring and that the Mortgage is over paid there is a surplus of escrow, and a violation of Continuity of Contact 12 CFR 1024.40 See Exhibit 34.\n\nI received a letter from Freedom Mortgage dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  stating that there was a surplus of escrow because of the prior property tax billing error. Freedom continued to make errors or willfully muddied the waters to create the illusion that the tax error was resolved in ignorance to information provided explaining that there was not just a surplus because of prior errors. That there was an even larger surplus because of the partial tax exemption. See Exhibit 35. \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX again explaining to them that there are errors occurring and that the property has a partial tax exemption. Plaintiff again provided Freedom Mortgage with a copy of the letter from the tax assessor. See Exhibit 36. \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX again providing them with the correct tax information and the correct balance of the surplus. See Exhibit 37. \n\nI received a letter from Freedom Mortgage dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX which was also erroneous. Freedom Mortgage again muddies the waters. Also note they said \" partial exemption ''. The surplus is more then what is mentioned in the letter also note that they said \" will be sent directly to you in the amount of {$1000.00}. '' And they also stated \" there was a surplus in the of {$170.00} with the new payment {$1200.00}. effective XX/XX/XXXX. See Exhibit 38. \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and asked them in a written request asking who owns the mortgage. The servicer has an obligation to provide me, the name, address, and telephone number of who owns the loan. \nIn compliance to Requests for Information 12 CFR 1024.36 The requirements set forth in 12 CFR 1024.36 apply to any mortgage loan, as that term is defined in 12 CFR 1024.31. and as in 12 U.S . \nCode 2605.\n\nFreedom Mortgage has refused to comply or furnish that information until this time. Freedom Mortgage had to respond with an answer within 30 business days and continues too willfully violate the laws pertaining to the request. See Exhibit 38 B.\n\nInformation Requests Regarding the Identity or Contact Information of the Owner or Assignee of a Mortgage Loan If the information requested is the identity or contact information of the owner or assignee of a mortgage loan, determine whether the institution complied by identifying the person on whose behalf the institution receives payments ( 12 CFR Part 1024, Supp. I., 1024.36 ( a ) -2 ). \n\nI contacted Freedom Mortgage on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In another attempt to get the numerous errors ones corrected occurring on a daily basis. And again, explained the errors and the fact that he has spent endless hours days and time on getting the numerous errors corrected. Freedom Mortgage had admitted that they did receive XXXX from the XXXX of XXXX which they had previously said would be returned directly to me. Freedom Mortgage had willfully paid the quarter of taxes even though there was a surplus and a refund once again mudding the waters to create a desired effect. \n\nTo obtain that money as well and to continue in the willful actions under the cover of an error exploiting the situation and willful violations of RESPA as plausible deniability to continue in at bear minimum in their never-ending errors in servicing the mortgage. \n\nFreedom Mortgage then created an additional surplus while billing me as a shortage. In the amount of XXXX is grossly mismanaging the taxes account while representing in a letter sent by them that the XXXX of XXXX would be refunding directly to me. \nFreedom Mortgage then claimed that that overpayment to the city tax officials was part of the refund of the check for the amount of XXXX creating yet another error. \n\nFreedom Mortgage continued to bill me the wrong amount and increased my monthly payment for what they claimed was an escrow shortage when in fact there was no such shortage there was a surplus that Freedom Mortgage was well aware of or notified about. There was no taxes due there was a refund due the taxes were over paid. Freedom Mortgage was also double billing the me. \n\nFreedom Mortgage at the time who was the servicer then tried to blame the previous servicer XXXX for the errors Freedom Mortgage was doing including the denial of the so-called shortage. \n\nFreedom Mortgage then willfully abused a government program to assist the public during Covid 19 Pandemic. Freedom Mortgage was also reporting incorrect information to credit reporting agencies causing harm to the Plaintiff and effecting his credibility. In violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ). Freedom Mortgage created harm so that I could not obtain a lower interest rate or obtain any equity out of the property. Freedom Mortgage was reporting that the Mortgage was being paid sluggishly and payment and/or payments were not received before a 16 day grace period which they would again misrepresent a month ago. See Exhibit 39.\n\nI contacted the City Tax authorities and Freedom Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to get the errors corrected. Freedom Mortgage was blaming the City Tax authorities for their error in over paying the taxes even though they were notified in writing of what the correct taxes on the property was as had acknowledged there was a surplus. However, Freedom Mortgage inexplicably made a tax disbursement instead of refunding me. \n\nFreedom Mortgage was claiming they did not know what the taxes were and that they could not get in touch with anyone at the taxing authorities. See Exhibits 40, 41 & 42. \n\nIn frustration filed a complaint with CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX. See Exhibit 47 Freedom Mortgage responded as Exhibit 47 shows. In their response they made false and misleading statements to CFPB and to me. They blamed the taxing authority for billing me even though they were provided with the correct information numerous times by me. \n\nThey also stated that they sent a refund of {$4300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX when the check they received on XX/XX/XXXX exceeding XXXX024.17 ( e ) ( 2 ) Surpluses. See Exhibit 48. Freedom Mortgage also made false and misleading statement that they had received the refund \" on XX/XX/XXXX. See Exhibit 49. \n\nI then received from Freedom Mortgage a statement claiming there was an escrow shortage of {$1500.00} on a statement from Freedom Mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX in which they claimed was because of the taxes, which was already paid by the Plaintiff. \n\nOn XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I paid XXXX XXXX Tax collector {$1800.00}, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I paid XXXX, on XXXX I paid XXXX to the XXXX XXXX Tax collector because of Freedom Mortgage 's willful negligence and/or continuous errors that are still occurring to this date and time. Therefore, there could not have been a shortage for a bill that did not exist. In fact, the taxes were over paid and there was a surplus at that time. See Exhibit 51 I knowing what they were up to and familiar with pattern that Freedom Mortgage was engaging in. Went to a public notary and paid the shortage in full with a cashiers check attached was the lump sum payment coupon provided on the statement. Plaintiff gave specific instructions what the payment was for and sent it to the address on the statement which said where to mail the payment to. It was sent priority mail with a tracking #. See Exhibit 52.\n\nFreedom Mortgage continues to skillfully disregard my option to pay any escrow shortages in a lump sum. I without a doubt paid the alleged shortage in a lump sum and opted out of having it broken down in 12-month installments or to have it added to his monthly mortgage billing to keep the payment lower. Even when I pay the alleged shortage in a lump sum Freedom Mortgage denies receipt of the lump sum payment. \n\nCreating willful errors so that I have to spend endless amounts of time to get it corrected. This is a violation of Regulation X, such as a lump sum payment option. 12 CFR 1024.17 ( f ) ( 3 ) ; 12 CFR 1024.17 ( i ) ( vii ). Freedom Mortgage continued bill me at the 12-month installment plan in disregardful such mechanism and continues to do so or make such errors. See Exhibit 55. \n\nFreedom Mortgage continued to make false or misleading statements to me and CFPB without any regard in their lawlessness. One of such is \" the XXXX XXXX XXXX Collector 's website, they credited you with a 100 % tax exemption for your XXXX tax liability \" and \" Your home owner 's insurance premium also increased from {$820.00} to {$1.00} XXXX \" and \" We have not received any payment from you to be applied to the shortage as of the date of this response. \" Freedom Mortgagee continues to make derogatory and defamatory statements while alluding to the facts causing further harm to the Plaintiff. \n\nI contacted the bank and did research to track the payment of {$1500.00} which Freedom Mortgage claimed they did not revive and determined it was cashed at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And contacted them they refused to tell the me if it was cashed by Freedom Mortgage or who had cashed it. See Exhibit 62. \n\nI received a letter from Freedom Mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX which the letter stated egregious erroneous statements and in which Freedom Mortgage still maintained that the lump sum balance was not paid. See Exhibit 64. \n\nFreedom Mortgage continued to make false and stated egregious erroneous statements to me and CFPB. \n\nThen said \" Regarding the lump sum payment, you did remit {$1500.00} on XX/XX/XXXX which represented the escrow shortage from escrow analysis dated XX/XX/XXXX. However, the payment with a principal curtailment was inadvertently applied as a regular payment with a principal curtailment and the monthly payment was not adjusted '' Another mistake and then Freedom Mortgage made another mistake and increased the monthly payment from, {$1000.00} to {$1100.00} a difference of XXXX per month. See Exhibit 68. In addition to that once again Freedom Mortgage had over charged the me {$410.00} and created a surplus that had to be refunded. \n\nI filed two more complaints with CFPB XXXX and XXXX. And once again to no prevail the error was not corrected. And the same patterns that Freedom Mortgage has been engaging in and has a long history of such patterns of what is being described. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I again served Freedom Mortgage about the never-ending errors upon errors of the errors that has been going on for years now. See Exhibit 69. I in a clear and precise mannerism notified Freedom Mortgage to \" cease and desist comply and conform without delay. '' I then received a notice that is a very clear indication and proves intent that Freedom Mortgage was not going to comply or conform in fact they were going to double down on it and created the newest error. \n\nIn which they would again say there is an escrow shortage in the amount XXXX date of the notice XX/XX/XXXX. In which they also make another one of those so-called errors and make a mistake as to what the current payment is and tack on top of the current payment and additional {$220.00} to begin by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Mistaking the current payment which is without a doubt and as the facts will show XXXX not XXXX. Making the new alleged {$1000.00} lump sum option which if we do the math comes to {$91.00} if we divide it by 12 months. Making it {$18.00} difference from the erroneous called current monthly payment {$1300.00}. \n\nThe current payment which they have stated which is in no doubt is XXXX as the as the without a doubt and as the facts will show XXXX and not XXXX. Making the new alleged {$1000.00} lump sum option which if we do the math comes to {$91.00} if we divide it by 12 months. Making it {$18.00} difference from the erroneous called current monthly payment {$1300.00}. \n\nThe current payment which they have stated which is in doubt was XXXX. \n\nMy taxes have not gone up and my insurance cost went down. See Exhibit 73 & 74. \n\nI paid the previous alleged escrow shortage in full which ended up in a surplus of {$410.00} which Freedom Mortgage paid to me ck # XXXX. And a refund that the City Tax collector had to have a Common Council vote to refund the overpayment of {$410.00} and issue XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX Freedom mortgages newest stunt is that they now did not know what the current mortgage payment was which wasXXXX and not XXXX that there is shortage for the same reason of the prior shortage paid in full because that there was partial tax exemption on the property and not a full one which they as provide knew from the onset. \n\nThat same escrow shortage paid in full that they said they did not get then later said they made an error. \n\nThat now there is a shortage of XXXX and to top it off they make a mistake as to what my mortgage payment was prior to the new charade which was XXXX and not XXXX. \n\nThey have now jacked it up to XXXX. I have served them certified mail they continue it.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-15T15:12:45.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"080XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8355133","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Freedom Mortgage Company","date_received":"2024-02-15T14:35:06.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I without a doubt paid the alleged shortage in a lump sum and opted out of having it <em>broken</em> down in 12-month installments or to have it added to his monthly mortgage billing to keep the payment lower. Even when I pay the alleged shortage in a lump sum Freedom Mortgage denies receipt of the lump sum payment. \n\nCreating willful <em>errors</em> so that I have to spend endless <em>amounts</em> of time to get it corrected."]},"sort":[7.6109486,"8355133"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3862282","_score":7.369169,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2020 I called Citi, one of my credit card companies and inquired about a balance transfer offer. I was told that I could have 0 % interest for 12 months so I agreed to transfer {$3300.00} to my Visa card ending in XXXX with my local credit union, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX. I was able to get an ID number from the employee at Citi and that was XXXX. The employees name was \" XXXX ''. We went through the balance transfer transaction details and I gave her my credit union information including the Name of the Credit Union, my Visa card number, address, and the phone number of my credit card company that was to be paid. I asked to have a confirmation sent to me, and just received a letter saying thank you for your balance transfer but no specific details. I understood that it would take some time for the balance transfer to show up and pay off my credit union credit card. I waited a few weeks because distance learning school had started and wildfires had broken out in my area of California, and by the time I remembered to check my balances it had already been a few weeks. When I checked my credit union balance I noticed that no transfer had been made. No money had come in to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from Citibank. \nAfter checking my credit union visa balance, I called Citiright away on XX/XX/2020. I talked with an employee by the name of \" XXXX ''. They informed me that they wired the funds to a company named XXXX XXXX. I told them that I had never heard of that company before and to verify the details of my transfer. They said that they had the same credit card number as mine, but the name of the company that got paid was not my credit union visa ( XXXX XXXX ) but instead an unknown company to me named XXXX XXXX. I told them that this was a major error and that I needed it to be corrected immediately so that I would not have double my credit card debt. They said they would open an investigation it would take 7 to 10 business days to hear a response. They asked for authorization to talk to my credit Union, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I gave them authorization immediately and informed my credit union that they would be contacting them. My credit union representative that I spoke to was named XXXX XXXX. \nThen I talked to a supervisor at Citi named \" XXXX '' On XX/XX/2020. She logged in my complaint and took down XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX phone number. \nOn XX/XX/2020 I called in for an update and talk to an employee named XXXX. They said they were no updates. \nOn XX/XX/2020 I called in for another update and was referred to another supervisor named \" XXXX ''. She informed me that it appeared that I have done nothing wrong and that my balance would reflect the credit of the transfer amount {$3300.00} and then I would receive it in my next statement. \nOn XX/XX/2020 I received a letter ( dated XX/XX/2020 ) that they were responding to my inquiry/dispute, and found that the company named XXXX XXXX was paid and that they consider their investigation resolved and were adding the disputed amount of {$3300.00} back to my Citi credit card balance. This is infuriating as I have never heard of this XXXX XXXX company before. I called my XXXX XXXX XXXX rep, XXXX XXXX and she said that she hadn't heard from Citi at all. I believe that Citibank erroneously entered my bank account information and therefore sent my money to a random company that Ive never heard of before named XXXX XXXX. I received a copy of the wire receipt with this letter from Citi dated XX/XX/2020, and the \" Payee '' is listed as my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX cardnumberending in XXXX, with the name XXXX XXXX below it and a PO Box from XXXX XXXX Missouri. This seems fraudulent and I hope that someone can help me get my money back from Citi or this random company that Citi sent it to. How could my exact credit card number from a California credit union be associated with an unknown company in XXXX XXXX Missouri? When I signed up for this balance transfer on XX/XX/2020, I agreed to their terms and we went over the information and the visa account info over and over and Im pretty sure they have a recorded conversation. They will not acknowledge that they have it though. Citibank told me in the letter to contact XXXX XXXX to find out where my money went. This is unbelievably unfair as I do not know who that company is, and it was Citis error. Citi should do what is right and honor the original balance transfer agreement which is only a phone conversation ( of which they probably have a copy of and they are not being transparent when I ask for their records XXXX and I do not have any documentation from them with specific info about the balance transfer transaction. The only thing they sent was a letter thanking me for accepting the special offer that they botched. \nOn XX/XX/2020 I talked to a supervisor named XXXX and he wanted to open up another investigation/dispute but wanted my full Social Security number and due to the fraudulent nature of the circumstances with Citibank, I was uncomfortable providing that. \nOn XX/XX/2020, I spoke with a friend in the mortgage business and she said that going to a local Citi branch probably wouldnt help me. She told me I should contact the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and the State attorney general. I finally found a website for a company called \" XXXX XXXX '' based on a lead from her friend who is a mortgage broker. I went to the site XXXX XXXX XXXX and could not find any phone numbers, so I filled out an online contact form and have yet to hear back from anyone. I have little confidence that I will, because Im not even sure its the same company that accepted the wire from Citi, and I am most definitely not an account holder with them or a customer of theirs. I have not received any good or any service from this company, XXXX XXXX, yet it shows up as a charge on my Citi statement. This is not right, and not good business on Citi 's part. \nOn XX/XX/2020, I spoke with XXXX at the CFPB, he suggested I fill out a form online for the fastest results. He said I could call the California Department of Corporations, the California Attorney General legal services, and possibly even the police to file a report. I then decided to give Citi one more call. I talked to XXXX who referred me to a supervisor named XXXX. She said that she looked back at XXXX records and that they dont have a complete record of my phone call regarding the balance transfer transaction on XX/XX/2020! She did say that she acknowledged the recipient shouldve been XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX visa. She did not confirm that she could see my credit card number ( which had been confirmed by a previous customer service rep with citi ). My XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX card number was actually the name of the Payee on their wire receipt along with the name \" XXXX XXXX '' underneath which I am not familiar with. Citi misappropriated these funds and they did not make it to the intended recipient ( in terms of our agreement from XX/XX/2020 ). She said that she would open another investigation and personally follow up with me. She said it would take 5 to 7 business days and that she would try to get it expedited as it has already been almost 2 months. On XX/XX/2020 I called the Department of corporations and \" XXXX '' referred me to the OCC who regulates national banks. I then called the OCC and spoke with \" Sue ''. She told me that I could file a report online and gave me another contact number for Citi. I tried calling the other contact number for Citi and got the same customer service department but I had been speaking with the whole time. I informed a supervisor ( named \" XXXX '' I think ) that I wish to cancel my auto pay with Citi and I did not intend to pay any of the disputed amount which was {$3300.00} plus {$100.00} transfer fee. She said she would add more notes to my 2nd investigation, case number ( XXXX ). I then called the CFPB back and spoke with XXXX. She indicated that I could file complaints with multiple agencies and it should not slow down the investigation process with Citi. I contacted XXXX at Citi via their app and he referenced a different case ID # XXXX and claimed that I would hear a response by XX/XX/2020. Please help me, I now have double my credit card debt due to no fault of my own and with no real help from Citi. I would like Citi to credit back the amount of their botched balance transfer ( {$3300.00} ) plus the transfer fee ( {$100.00} ) and any interest charges accrued during this dispute. I was merely taking Citi, a major financial institution, at their word and accepting their routine balance transfer offer and feel like I have been scammed.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-09-23T21:24:44.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"950XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3862282","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2020-09-23T21:18:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with balance transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Citibank told me in the letter to contact XXXX XXXX to find out where my <em>money</em> went. This is unbelievably unfair as I do not know who that company is, and it was Citis <em>error</em>."]},"sort":[7.369169,"3862282"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2736681","_score":7.3571873,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"THIS IS NEW COMPLAINT THAT DEVELOPED ON XX/XX/XXXX AND IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO MY OLD COMPLAINT SUCH AS XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ETC. \nVIOLATION OF RESPA, CORRUPTION, MONEY LAUNDERING BULLYING AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION. \n\nDATED XX/XX/XXXX This is not an old compliant that should be included with XX/XX/XXXX, or XX/XX/XXXX or any past complain. There should no reason what so ever to delay my other complaint to be provided full response since XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX etc. \n\nIts been since XX/XX/XXXX I have not been provided with back up documents why unpaid balance on XX/XX/XXXX letter as {$47.00}, XXXX which included {$19000.00} escrow account. \nI have been not provided why on XX/XX/XXXX extra {$25000.00} is for what and I have not provided any back up documents. \nI have also not been either sent refund or my account credited for {$7500.00} MONEY LAUNDERING Law requires Wells Fargo Bank to credit my payments as soon they are received and not hold on to the payments for 4 years. WFB is involved in money laundering for neither send me refund, nor crediting my account for close to 4 years. My request on XX/XX/XXXX to correct the error has been futile. WFB has no intention and to correct the error, apply payments to my account and has refused send me refunds. I spoke to manager XXXX XXXX and explained him to correct modification documents and either credited my account for XX/XX/XXXX payments. He agree with me amount should be broken down and provide me his email I received no response. I made multiple phone calls sent multiple email was sent XXXX XXXX neither replied any of my email neither has return of my phone message. He also did not answer of my phone calls after my first telephone conversation. Close to 20 emails and unlimited phone message has been left for XXXX XXXX none has been responded. WFB have been informed multiple method about the error or money laundering but they stubborn n and ignorant to correct this taking its position to WHO CARES CORRUPTION Since XX/XX/XXXX etc ; WFB has not provided any answers to my dispute had asked closed to 60 extensions to me answers with back up documents. One my request since XX/XX/XXXX was that documents provided for modification after receiving funds from Keep My Home CA had the following errors that needed to be corrected. As of XX/XX/XXXX WFB has not corrected or provide any reason why documents was right and could not be corrected. \n1. Total balance on the account was not correct.\n2. Total unpaid on XX/XX/XXXX balance was also not correct 3. WFB has not applied my payments of XX/XX/XXXX to my account for close 4 years 4. Escrow balance and payments were wrong 5. Based on XX/XX/XXXX letter unpaid balance of {$47.00}, XXXX XXXX. At the end on XX/XX/XXXX modification document unpaid {$73000.00} XXXX. Additional or extra {$25000.00} WFB has not provide any back documents and this has been added to my account in matter of few months. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I emailed entire modification documents emailed to manger XXXX and I asked XXXX XXXX to respond to me after receiving entire documents that they were received. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I received email confirmation modification documents was received. ( Attached ) On XX/XX/XXXX I dropped off sealed envelope fully paid and was provided by WFB to XXXX XXXX and was delivered to WFB on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX received and singed by XXXX XXXX. ( Attached ) On XX/XX/XXXX I left voice mail message for XXXX XXXX to find if I should get another sets of documents or need to get an update. I received no return phone call from XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent email to XXXX inquiring the same that should I be getting any further documents from WFB and since it was after 2 weeks I have no idea what was going on. ( Attached ) On XX/XX/XXXX late in the afternoon I received phone call from XXXX and she told it seems WFB is returned funds to XXXX and she no further information it was in process. Upon getting further information she promised she will advise me or provide me more information. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I called WFB and it was closed so I left voice mail message for XXXX XXXX to return my phone call. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I called WFB around XXXX XXXX and spoke to staff named XXXX XXXX. I asked to speak to manager I was told hold on he phone and after she came she told me XXXX was answering his phone she had sent and email XXXX has not responded. She than told she will send another email to XXXX lead and than informed lead has not responded to email as well. I than asked to speak to manager again she send another email to manger and than informed manager also did not respond to he email. She than informed me may they all are in meeting and that is why no one respond to he emails. \nI than asked her if she can see anywhere in my accounts funds has been returned to XXXX. I was told no but I was informed my modification documents has not been received by WFB. Told her I have email confirmation on XX/XX/XXXX it  received and XXXX delivery confirmation. At that point she said XXXX was back on his desk and transferred the call to XXXX. \nI asked XXXX about funds being returned to XXXX he explained me my documents was supposed to have been received by XX/XX/XXXX and since it was not received by WFB by XX/XX/XXXX funds was returned to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \nI than told XXXX I received an email conformation on XX/XX/XXXX he never stated in his emailed funds were returned on XX/XX/XXXX. I was explained that he never send emails. I told him my email was sent to manger XXXX and it was XXXX who replied conformation. I further told he call me on XX/XX/XXXX which agreed and I told in that recoded conversation he did not mention funds will be returned and documents was supposed to be received by WFB on XX/XX/XXXX. I than told I have received multiple letters mostly from him after XX/XX/XXXX and so do CFPB has received multiple extension none stated funds were returned or will be returned and final date to received modified documents was XX/XX/XXXX. \nI than requested to speak to his mange and XXXX named manager came on line. She told my issues have been almost competed and I should get response in writing soon. She also stated to me final date to received documents was XX/XX/XXXX. I told her multiple and multiple extension has been received in writing, phone calls and through CFPB none stated about final date to receive modification date was XX/XX/XXXX. \nI than told her I received email confirmation on XX/XX/XXXX it did not state final date was XX/XX/XXXX and funds has been returned on XX/XX/XXXX. She again told me funds were returned on XX/XX/XXXX. She further stated to me she will look to entire stuff and get back to me within 24 to 48 hours. She also stated to me investigation into my complaint dose not indicate there was any problem and all payments and other funds have been properly applied. \nI called back to CEO XXXX XXXX office spoke to XXXX she told me I have called multiple times and she will have to transfer call to mortgage corporate office and the call was transferred the call. I spoke to XXXX XXXX explained her of the above she asked me she sits next to XXXX XXXX and she had entire conversation and as sated within 24 to 48 hours above issues will be provided. I than asked her of she fax number so I can send email confirmation her. She did provide me her fax number and phone number. I than requested that please answer my calls and return my messages since XXXX XXXX dose not do that. I did set the fax with email confirmation dated XX/XX/XXXX and received phone call from XXXX. I called him back on XX/XX/XXXX he confirmed to me fax was received on XX/XX/XXXX. \nI again asked XXXX that so many letters was received after XX/XX/XXXX for an extension none sated final date to submit modification documents was XX/XX/XXXX. Neither I was phone discussion with him on XX/XX/XXXX he sated about final date was XX/XX/XXXX. Nor CFPB was informed neither its states in his email funds was returned. He gain reiterated to me he dose not send email and due date was XX/XX/XXXX and funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX. \nIts over 48 hours I have received no information from WFB. \nI called XXXX spoke to XXXX and she than twisted things little bit and stated to me she was able to see funds being returned on XX/XX/XXXX and funds was received on XX/XX/XXXX. She told me things are done differently in their office it is done electronically. By using electronically funds should not take about one month to be received by XXXX. She did not provide me reason why it took abut one months to received funds. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX from XXXX also contradicted herself by stating she could see funds being in process of returned but funds was officially returned on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX never stated to me she could funds being returned on XX/XX/XXXX. \nBased on my discussion with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX I was explained XXXX could see funds are being returned but she had no detail as on that time. My email to her on XX/XX/XXXX confirmation from WFB nothing was stated that on XX/XX/XXXX funds was returned when according WFB funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX ( Attached ) also she contradicted herself on XX/XX/XXXX she stated she could see funds were being returned on XX/XX/XXXX but did not mention this to me XX/XX/XXXX. \nWFB is involved in corruption letters sent to me, phone calls made to and to CFPB no stated funds were returned or last date was XX/XX/XXXX. There was never at any point of time during my phone conversation, email to manager XXXX, letter I was informed last date to receive documents was XX/XX/XXXX. Email conformation attached was dose not indicates that. About 20 email to XXXX XXXX not even singe was replied what I call BULLING AND CORRUPTION. ( Attached ). XXXX has no excuse and that XXXX XXXX was not getting my email. My email with documents emailed to him in which I asked him to confirm me if entire documents were received and he did. \nEmail confirmation which was received on XX/XX/XXXX dose not state funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX.  DOJ and FBI will be filed complaint to investigate this corruption. \nEven if the funds were returned on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX never received it until XX/XX/XXXX close to one month late. No funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX but it was received on XX/XX/XXXX and it was re tuned around XX/XX/XXXX. DOJ will and FBI will have investigated this corruption and fraud. It dose not even takes mail to arrive about one month it normally takes 2 days. Here funds were received on XX/XX/XXXX and I have recorded discussion form XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Its just corruption by WFB. I have recorded conversation with XXXX from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX she confirmed to me returned funds was received on XX/XX/XXXX. \nBULLING AND ADVANTAGE WFB by holding lien is bulling us which I have stated before and stating this. Now. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I had telephone discussion with XXXX who called me to request for an extension to provide my answers to my dispute items. He did not stated to me in the conversation which is recoded yesterday which was XX/XX/XXXX was last to get the singed documents and it was late. Will provide that recoded conversation. He never stated funds will be returned CORRUPTION AND FRAUD Multiple letters received by XXXX after XX/XX/XXXX dose not states funds was returned because last date to provide singed documents was XX/XX/XXXX. ( Attached ) WFB is taking advantage its position by holding line that they can decided either way and I have to accept it. From XX/XX/XXXX,  XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX I have not received my disputed facts with back up documents why they disagree or agree. \nONLY THING I HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT 60 EXTENSIONS Like wise my XX/XX/XXXX letter over close to 100 pages has not been received with back up documents why WFB agrees or disagree. Neither they have provided to CFPB. All WFB has done is kept asking for extension and close to 60 extension has been made to provide me an answers. Despite this manger XXXX insisted with me there is nothing wrong with amount and all are correct. Accounts are not the only issues but there are many other issues and manger XXXX is incompetent state to me all are correct. I will prove her wrong if she ones to get 3 party conference with CFPB and Senator XXXX. \nAs she stated amounts are correct she must leave WFB for stating amounts are correct when attached documents indicates XX/XX/XXXX payments has not been applied to my account. It indicates its sitting in un applied funds. Manager XXXX is incompetent should reign for providing me wrong information which is recorded. \nLike wise manager XXXX amount on XX/XX/XXXX letter un applied balance was $ {$47.00}, XXXX and modification documents of XX/XX/XXXX was {$73000.00} additional {$25000.00} she just can tell me that is correct but provide me back up copies what extra {$25000.00} has been added for and why. She must provide me beck up documents why {$25000.00} was added so far I have not been provided but illegal, fraud and corruption. \n\nRESPA VIOLATION 1. My dispute if XX/XX/XXXX WFB has neither acknowledged within 10 days or provide me any answers within 30 days as required by law. \n2. My disputed latter of XX/XX/XXXX was acknowledged within 10 days but I have not been provided any answers or response to my inquiry after 3 months and law require only 30 days to respond to inquiries and not indefinite. \n3. My payments of XX/XX/XXXX has neither be credited nor applied to my account or I have been sent refund. \n4. My letter sent to WFB to correct the error XX/XX/XXXX has not been either corrected, or I have received any acknowledgment in 10 days or have been provided response within 30 days as required by law. \n5. WFB is involved in money laundering payments that was received in XX/XX/XXXX should been credit or applied to my account at that time. Its been close to 4 years my payments has neither been credited nor applied to my account. Neither have I been provided refund as per my request in my email letters which included on XX/XX/XXXX 6. WFB refused to provide me why {$25000.00} was added with back up documents for close three months. Law requires them to provide me my inquiry to be responded within 30 days. \n7. WFB has not provided any back up documents why it has overpaid escrow account for close to 11 months and law requires them to provide me inquiries within 30 days. \n8. XX/XX/XXXX I left message at XXXX XXXX not received no phone call. Called him about noon he told he had not heard his message. I asked home to give me brake down of {$73000.00}. He told me he can only give principal balance of {$120000.00} and escrow has negative $ XXXX but can not give answer to interest he is still doing research and he has time until XX/XX/XXXX to respond, ON XX/XX/XXXX PHONE CONVERSATION HE DID NOT STATE HE HAS NOT RECEIVED MODIFICATION DOCUMENTS AND I HAD LAST DATE WAS XX/XX/XXXX AND HE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS 9. ON THE PHONE CONVERSATION HE DID NOT STATED HE NOT RECEIVED MODIFICATION DOCUMENTS AND I HAD LAST DATE WAS XX/XX/XXXX AND HE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS RETALIATION After I asserted my rights to file complaints with Senator XXXX XXXX, Congress XXXX, Assemblyman XXXX XXXX, Comptroller of Currency, FTC, Attorney General of IA, Attorney General of CA etc. \nWFB has just retaliated with me by returning funds to XXXX after some time in XX/XX/XXXX and now lying to me funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX. Its dose not takes close to one month any types fund to be returned close to one month or 25 days via electronic fund transfer. Its also fraud to state to me on XX/XX/XXXX funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX neither in any letters after XX/XX/XXXX states, in any email to the manager, to CFPB and phone conversation stated to me funds will be returned after XX/XX/XXXX. None of the letters attached after XX/XX/XXXX states funds was returned on XX/XX/XXXX. \nIts part of retaliation for me asserting my rights after WFB its has been bulling us, violating laws and retaliating against me. \nNo funds were returned on XX/XX/XXXX and no funds were received around XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX. No funds were received by XXXX anytime in XX/XX/XXXX this is just simple Fraud and Corruption. Funds was received XX/XX/XXXX dose not indicates its was ever returned on XX/XX/XXXX and is part of retaliation. \nMultiple letters ( attached ) received after XX/XX/XXXX dose not indicate final date was XX/XX/XXXX to send singed documents. Neither it stated funds were already returned is part of retaliation. \nLike wise CFPB has received multiple notice of extension of time to provide response to my inquiry and none stated final date to provide since documents was XX/XX/XXXX also of if retaliation. \n\nI WOULD LIKE REITERATE WELL FARGO NEVER DISCUSS WITH ME ANY TIME FUNDS WILL BE RETURNED AFTER XX/XX/XXXX IF DOCUMENTS WERE RETURNED BEFORE THAN NEITHER I WAS INFORMED IN ANY WAY FUDS WERE RETURNED ON XX/XX/XXXX. I ONLY CAME KNOW FUNDS WERE BEING RETURNED THROUGH XXXX AFTER I HAD SEND EMAIL TO FIND OUT THE STATUES OF MODIFICATION ONCE AGAIN THIS IS NEW COMPLAINT THAT DEVELOPED ON XX/XX/XXXX AND IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO MY OLD COMPLAINT SUCH AS XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ETC ; AND DATE OF COMPLAINT FILED IN XX/XX/XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-11-23T09:56:30.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"95823","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2736681","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2017-11-23T09:24:44.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["WFB has no intention and to correct the <em>error</em>, apply payments to my account and has refused send me refunds. I spoke to manager XXXX XXXX and explained him to correct modification documents and either credited my account for XX/XX/XXXX payments. He agree with me <em>amount</em> should be <em>broken</em> down and provide me his email I received no response. I made multiple phone calls sent multiple email was sent XXXX XXXX neither replied any of my email neither has return of my phone message."]},"sort":[7.3571873,"2736681"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3081708","_score":7.003585,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2018, XXXX and XXXX XXXX car was broken into at XXXX. It was parked in the driveway which has floodlights illuminating it. A debit card and a credit card were in the vehicle. No PIN was in the wallet that was taken with the cards. The home security camera captured the act. It looks like it was a teenager who broke in. \n\nThe theft was discovered at about XXXX the next day. Upon discovering the theft, the stolen card was cancelled online. XXXX XXXX ( joint accountholder ), whose card was stolen was told by USAA to wait until all the charges were processed to file a claim and only the transfers showing on XX/XX/XXXX, were noted by XXXX. \n\nThis theft itself was immediately reported to the XXXX Police Department and to USAA. {$700.00} in charges were placed on the debit card at several local XXXX overnight. \n\nUSAA called approximately a week later to allow all the charges to process and asked questions of XXXX on a 5-minute phone call. They asked if the PIN was written on the card or was it in the wallet and asked, if needed could a police report be provided? The investigator was told the PIN was not present and a police report was made and would be sent when made available by the police, but the investigator said, Im just making sure if I need it that you can provide it. She asked if the car was parked in the driveway or out front and asked, how do you even know it was stolen? That is when she was advised of the home security system and we offered video. \n\nWhile we understand the presence of the PIN would have made transactions easier for the thief, that fact can not be used in determining liability under Reg E, Commentary 6 ( b ) 2. Regardless, the PIN was not there but this was a key ( 33 % of the factors ) in the decision to deny the claim, thereby increasing liability to the consumer, ironically because it was not present. Had it been written on the card USAA could not have used no failed PIN attempts as a reason to deny the claim, so this security measure is used against the consumer. See bullet 2 below. \n\nXXXX video shows a teenager, possibly the same from our home camera, with who could be his mom, using the card. These videos, stills, and the police report were provided USAA even though they were not requested by them. The USAA investigators we spoke with when we called them seemed oblivious to the fact that we had sent them electronically. We do not believe these were reviewed. ( More on that below. ) USAA paid the claim provisionally but later rescinded that credit and denied the claim. Upon receiving written notification that the credit would be rescinded XXXX called USAA and discussed the facts of the case. He understood the investigator to say they would try to recall the provisional credit debit and extend the investigation, but that did not happen. USAA proceeded on its course. \n\nOn a 3-way call between USAA, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, who is on the account ) had the claim elevated for a higher review. USAA did not reopen the claim according to them but reviewed it at the highest level, they said. On another 3-way call we ascertained from the investigator/reviewer why the claim was denied. It seems they use a checklist reminiscent of OCC Advisory Letter 2001-9 ( now rescinded ) and noted three factors in this denial : 1. The card has a history of use at XXXX. \n2. There were no failed PIN attempts.\n\n3. There were no attempts to use the card after it was reported stolen. \n\nHad USAA asked questions of us during this investigation these points may have been discussed and better understood, but as noted USAAs conversation with us were sparse and short. They did not appear interested in these facts : 1 - XXXX is the worlds largest retailer, and XXXX works for XXXX. It would be expected to see the card used by thieves there due to its size and practices of customer satisfaction. That also explains the pattern of usage, although XXXX does not regularly shop at one of the stores the thieves used. \n2 - PIN requirements vary by store as some are diligent about requiring a PIN while others are not. This is based on discussions with a few store managers. No one we spoke with knew who set this policy or if it rotated or was based on chargebacks/losses, the card, etc. XXXX said his XXXX store rarely requires a PIN, although his store was not one in question. An employee of the XXXX XXXX store where thefts did happen said sometimes PINs are required on a {$4.00} purchase but not on a {$100.00} purchase. It is required sporadically and the criteria is unknown as to when it is required. \n3 The thieves depleted all available funds on their last transaction. There was no more money available and they may have been aware of this or simply knew they have a limited time period to use a stolen card and may have moved on.\n\nThe primary objective of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Reg E is the protection of individual consumers engaging in electronic fund transfers. Section 909 ( b ) of the EFTA establishes that the burden of proof is on the financial institution to show that the transaction was authorized. We maintain Reg E requires the bank to prove the consumer completed the transaction, authorized it or benefited from it. The degree of proof is not stated, but we feel USAA has not reached any reasonable burden of proof. \n\nAn \" unauthorized EFT '' clearly includes instances when the access devise was obtained by fraud or robbery. From the commentary : \" Access device obtained through robbery or fraud. An unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud or robbery. '' An access device clearly includes a debit card. From the commentary : \" The term access device includes debit cards, personal identification numbers ( PINs ), telephone transfer and telephone bill payment codes, and other means that may be used by a consumer to initiate an electronic fund transfer ( EFT ) to or from a consumer account. '' An \" unauthorized EFT '' is clearly included in the definition of an \" error '' that must be investigated under 1005.11 : \" ( a ) Definition of error. ( 1 ) Types of transfers or inquiries covered. The term error means : ( i ) An unauthorized electronic fund transfer '' 1005.11 ( c ) requires an \" error '' to be corrected within one business day after determining that an error occurred : \" The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred. '' The only thing in Regulation E that is not clear is how the bank is to conduct their investigation and make a determination. That said, the camera evidence seems to provide 100 % proof that this is an \" error, '' because it is an \" unauthorized EFT '' because the access devise was obtained through \" robbery or fraud. '' Reg E extends protections to the consumer. USAA must comply with the Reg E requirements when any oral or written notice of error from the consumer : Is received no later than 60 days after the periodic statement is sent or provides the passbook documentation on which the alleged error is first reflected ; Enables the bank to identify the consumer 's name and account number ; and Indicates why the consumer believes an error exists and includes to the extent possible the type, date, and amount of the error. \n\nCertainly we went above and beyond this providing video, still images and a police report. USAA may have surmised that we were attempting to defraud them with a false claim. {$700.00} is not worth the risk of being charged with a criminal penalty for filing a false police report. XXXX has banked and had various financial services there for approximately 8 years and XXXX 42 years. There should be no mis-trust in this relationship. \n\nAs is our right under Reg E we requested copies of the information used in our investigation on XXXX XXXX. On our last call with USAA they assured us we would have it electronically by XXXX XXXX. As of today, XXXX XXXX this has not been delivered. Ten business days should be adequate time for such a delivery as no creation of documents was required. We have no idea if they included our submissions in their investigation. \n\nOn both calls in which XXXX XXXX was included, USAA was made aware of the EFTA and Reg E requirements by him. They seemed uninterested. On the last call XXXX asked to speak to a higher level person as this investigation was not, in his opinion, compliant with the intent or requirements of Reg E. We were told no, this was as high as we could go. We asked to be transferred to the Compliance Department and were again told no. ( XXXX has been in banking and compliance for 38 years and intended to speak with someone more knowledgeable about Reg E. ) The investigator was advised we would officially complain to the OCC and the Bureau. \n\nWe believe such a recipe for claims determinations will have damaged many other consumers and, in that USAA serves the military in great numbers, it has not met the spirit and intent of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act if they have defrauded servicemembers by taking away their rights under the SCRA and EFTA and created financial hardships for them. We also believe USAAs procedure violates Unfair, Deceptive Acts and Practices rules. \n\nRelated to the denied claim is a snowball effect that causes financial hardships for consumers. In this case XXXX and XXXX house payment was returned as nonsufficient funds. We immediately covered that. Then the mortgage lender, after already receiving the XXXX XXXX payment, auto-charged the account a week later and said \" oops, you are prepaid we can send you a check in two weeks. '' This second debit was also covered by us but caused additional overdraft fees. The mortgage lender said they would not refund the overdraft fees and a claim would have to be made to USAA for those. This is the holiday season and it is not a time many can afford to make multiple house payments and cover overdraft fees so we placed another EFT claim for the unauthorized house payment. For a young family of four living paycheck to paycheck this could be devastating and while it started with the theft, USAA made it worse disregarding Reg E and consumer protection laws and regulations. \n\nIt is worth mentioning that the credit card which had fraudulent charges had those charges immediately reversed.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-11-23T21:58:40.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"76549","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3081708","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2018-11-23T21:44:19.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["USAA must comply with the Reg E requirements when any oral or written notice of <em>error</em> from the consumer : Is received no later than 60 days after the periodic statement is sent or provides the passbook documentation on which the alleged <em>error</em> is first reflected ; Enables the bank to identify the consumer 's name and account number ; and <em>Indicates</em> why the consumer believes an <em>error</em> exists and includes to the extent possible the type, date, and <em>amount</em> of the <em>error</em>."]},"sort":[7.003585,"3081708"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7001193","_score":6.2775106,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"FHA/HUD/CARDINAL FINANCIALXXXX XXXX XXXX  ERROR LEAVES SINGLE MOTHER OF XXXX FACING FORECLOSURE AND {$100000.00} REPAIR BILL FORCING THEM TO LIVE IN UNINHABITABLE HOME FOR TWO YEARS.\n\nIn XXXX  of XXXX, I left my diagnosed XXXX husband and my financially, verbally, and emotionally XXXX  marriage, and filed for divorce. My XXXX children and I lived in a two bedroom apartment for 2  years while I rebuilt my credit that was destroyed by my ex husband in order to purchase a home for us. In XXXX of XXXX I purchased a home in XXXX XXXX, Texas using a FHA loan in hopes of rebuilding a life for my kids and I. \n\nFHA : When an FHA loan is being used, the appraiser has two objectives. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) requires him to determine the current market value, as with any appraisal. But they also require a property inspection to make sure the home meets HUD 's minimum standards for health and safety. \n4150.2 The appraisal process is the lenders tool for determining if a property meets the minimum property requirements and eligibility standards for a FHA insured mortgage. Underwriters bear primary responsibility for determining eligibility ; however, the appraiser is the on-site representative for the lender and provides preliminary verification that the General Acceptability Criteria standards have been met. \n\n\" FHA-approved lenders are obliged to apply to our underwriting standards, not only to protect our insurance fund, but to make certain families can sustain their mortgages, '' said Acting FHA Commissioner XXXX XXXX . \" Due diligence is at the root of mortgage lending protecting lenders, the FHA, and certainly homeowners from the prospect of foreclosure. '' In XXXX of XXXX we began having plumbing issues and in XXXX of XXXX I noticed an error in my appraisal that would have disqualified the home and the loan from funding. The appraiser used by Cardinal Financial marked my utilities as public water and sewer when in fact they are private water well and septic. Had it been marked properly Cardinal was required to ensure the following minimum property requirements per the FHA. \n\n6Does the report indicate that the water is private? If yes, does the appraiser provide a comment on the availability of public water and if the subject is required to connect? Also, does the appraiser comment if private utilities are common for the area and if there is any impact on the subject 's marketability?\n\n8Does the report indicate that the sewer is private? If yes, does the appraiser provide a comment on the availability of public sewer and if the subject is required to connect?\n\nIf also on private water, is there a comment noting if the subject meets the minimum FHA distance requirements from the well to the storage tank, drain field, and property? \nAlso, does the appraiser comment if private utilities are common for the area and if there is any impact on the subject 's marketability?\n\nThis was not performed, and the home does not and can not physically qualify. The costs to bring the property up to todays health and safety code are over {$100000.00} FHA WELL TO SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. \n\nSeptic to well minimum XXXX distance this property is less than XXXXt Well to drain field minimum XXXX ft although they will allow a minimum of XXXX with a waiver this property is XXXXft FHA will accept the state/local distance requirements for well/septic systems as long as they are not less than XXXX  feet between the well and septic tank drainfield Well to property line minimum of XXXXft this property is less than XXXXft For properties that are served by wells, FHA loan rules now say, When an individual Water Supply System is present, the Mortgagee must ensure that the water quality meets the requirements of the health authority with jurisdiction . \n\n( a ) Requirements for Well Water TestingA well water test is required for, but not limited to, Properties : where the distance between the well and septic system is less than 100 feet.\n\n( Q ) Sewage SystemThe Mortgagee must confirm that a connection is made to a public or community sewage disposal system whenever feasible and available at a reasonable cost. If connection costs to the public or community system are not reasonable, the existing Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems are acceptable provided they are functioning properly and meet the requirements of the local health department. When the Onsite Sewage Disposal System is not sufficient and an off-site system is available, the Mortgagee must confirm connection to an off-site sewage system. When the Onsite Sewage Disposal System is not sufficient and an off-site system is not available, the Mortgagee must reject the Property unless the Onsite Sewage Disposal System is repaired or replaced and complies with local health department standards.\n\nPer Cardinal Financials website by definition a FHA appraisal is the following.\n\nWhat is an FHA appraisal? \nThe FHA appraisal process is unique in that the appraiser basically performs double-duty as both an appraiser and an inspector.\n\nWhen you use a Conventional loan to buy a house, your appraiser is mainly concerned about the current market value of the property. But when you use a federally-insured FHA loan , the appraiser has two objectives : Determine the houses value, and inspect it to make sure it meets minimum standards for health and safety set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ).\n\nThe real difference between the two is the level of inspection that HUD requires in order to fund the loan.\n\nIf the FHA appraiser flags certain issuespeeling paint, loose handrails, or other safety issuesthe loan is put on hold until theyre fixed. Thats not the case with a regular appraisal used for a Conventional home loan.\n\nNote they include FHAs minimum standards for health and safety.\n\nminimum standards for health and safety The FHA has put these minimum property standard requirements into place in order to protect lenders.\n\nRequiring that the property meet minimum standards protects the lender. It means that the property should be easier to sell and command a higher price if the lender has to seize it.\n\nAt the same time, this requirement also protects the borrower : It means they will not be burdened with costly home repair bills and maintenance from the start. In addition, with a fundamentally sound place to live, the borrower may have more of an incentive to make their payments in order to keep the home.\n\nWhat Are the FHA 's Minimum Property Standards?\n\nAccording to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ), the FHA requires that the properties financed with its loan products meet the following minimum standards : Safety : The home should protect the health and safety of the occupants.\n\nSecurity : The home should protect the security of the property.\n\nSoundness : The property should not have physical deficiencies or conditions affecting its structural integrity.1 According to information found on the FHA/HUD official site , the lender is responsible for making sure a particular property lives up to local requirements and that community sewage systems are properly licensed and that said systems are \" adequate '' enough to service the property.\n\nThe reason this property can not physically qualify even with repair is the following again directly from Cardinals website under what if my home does not pass FHA inspection? The only alternative is a FHA XXXX loan aka a rehab loan which requires a minimum of 1 acre for properties with both a well and septic. This property is less than 1 acre and that is the reason a replacement system is so expensive for this property. There is physically not enough room for repair or replacement which is requirement number XXXX  in the checklist for well and septic waivers that was yet another requirement not performed prior to approval.\n\n5. Evidence that the system is working properly. And there is sufficient space for repair/maintenance. \n\n\nIt has been over a year and a half since I reported the error to XXXX XXXX and Cardinal. Rather than taking accountability for their error, I have been unable to pay my mortgage since XXXX of XXXX due to spending over {$30000.00} to date on maintenance and attorneys fees trying to prove liability. I had to take a {$9000.00} loan at a XXXX XXXX interest rate for the initial retainer. I also can not afford alternative living expenses while paying an attorney so my XXXX children and I are forced to live in an uninhabitable health hazardous home until this is resolved. \n\nMy kids and I have not had a safe, sound home in 2 years. We do not know if our water is safe due to it being less than XXXX from a source of pollution. There is raw sewage coming up my shower drains and running across my driveway. Not to mention I live on XXXX XXXX and this is an environmental hazard. Everything we own smells like mold. I have been put on XXXX XXXX medication due to not knowing if we will be forced to start over again. It is apparent their only strategy is to mentally and financially drain me to the point I am forced to give up pursuing them. \n\nDespite the following from the FHA handbook ; 4155.2 4.1.b Lender Responsibility for Appraisals Lenders, including sponsoring lenders, are equally responsible, along with appraisers, for the quality, integrity, accuracy and thoroughness of appraisals. The lender will be held accountable if it knew, or should have known, that there were problems with the integrity, accuracy and thoroughness of an appraisal submitted to FHA for mortgage insurance purposes. Lenders that submit appraisals to HUD that do not meet FHA requirements are subject to the imposition of sanctions by the HUD Mortgagee Review Board ( MRB ). \n\nXXXX XXXX from the FHA Home ownership department has stated that there was no way the lender could have known the actual source of the utilities since the appraiser marked them as public ( although it was listed as septic and well in the public XXXX and the appraiser took a picture of the water well storage tank included in the appraisal ) therefore they are not holding Cardinal accountable to their own rules and regulations, and Cardinal has taken that as they are not liable for their clients mistake leaving me holding an over {$100000.00} repair bill or to spend thousands facing the possibility of being homeless to pursue them. \n\nThe FHA also states the following which has not been done. \n\n\" Lenders must report to FHA all findings of fraud and material misrepresentations. Lenders must also report any material findings concerning the origination, underwriting, or servicing of the loan, that the lender is unable to mitigate or otherwise resolve. '' I have also found evidence below that Cardinal Financial forces appraisers to submit as is appraisals only.\n\nI recently did an appraisal for them for one property and called for a foundation inspection since I noticed a crack in the wall, and noticeable sagging on the first and second floors of the house. There was nothing out of the ordinary with the report otherwise. Cardinal came back 3 TIMES and forcefully told me \" we require as-is reports ''. So basically Cardinal Financial is just cancelling orders immediately once they find out the appraiser is not going to rubber stamp and ignore an obvious issue. they told me to change my report from subject to inspection to as-is and remove the concern about the foundation. they didnt want a cost to cure. They wanted an as is ignoring the problem. Wasnt about me not complying with a cost to cure or finding the value of a defect situation Weve had two AMCs recent that asks us to ignore the problems too. Wonder if it has to do with packaging the loans up and MBSs and some type of quality issue? Its completely wrong. The sad part is this -- if they find an appraiser who rubber stamps this, then the borrower could be out tons of money, I spoke with some of the other people at the old firm I used to work at and they confirmed that they have had issues with Cardinal in the past. One time Cardinal even asked one of their appraisers to change the effective date on a appraisal and when he refused they said \" we wont tattle ''. So you know what, good riddance. I'm glad I asked that they be taken off my client list. I don't need a shady *** client like that. I just spoke with an appraiser @ HUD. She said it does not matter what the report is for, if there is an FHA case number, the property does not meet HUD 's minimum property standards and the report is 'as-is ', this is in violation of FHA guidelines and ( at a minimum ) the appraiser is going to get a letter from HUD. She said she wouldn't touch this assignment with a XXXX foot pole. I've asked them to reassign. \n\nhttps : XXXX The FHA appraisal report guide says to complete AS-IS when, - there are no repairs, alterations or inspection conditions noted by the appraiser ; Meaning by Cardinal Financial only accepting `` as is '' appraisals, it does not allow the appraiser to notate any needed/required inspections aka subject to which wouldve been required had the appraiser marked well and septic. Therefore they are bypassing FHA requirements and passing all liability to the appraiser/borrower. Essentially telling the appraiser we do not accept a property that requires further inspection which they would only know after the assignment has been performed and if you want the assignment/to get paid change it from subject to to \" as is '' and assume all liability. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I sent the following to the FHA along with the amendment to the sales contract notating the property was well and septic. \n\nI have not received any communication on the below information provided proving the lender Cardinal Financial was aware the property was on private septic and well. Not to mention the XXXX stated the same. You are creating a culture of irresponsibility by not holding your FHA lenders accountable to the rules you created. You are providing the loophole for the lender to get away with great harm to both the borrower and the appraiser as you will see below multiple questionable practices from Cardinal Financial persuading appraisers to \" look the other way '' as was done in my case leaving me and the appraiser holding an over XXXX bill. Cardinal has stated to me personally that \" the FHA has investigated the matter and have not requested any additional information. '' If the FHA does not care to hold them accountable then it falls on the borrower and appraisers liability insurance with zero consequence to them and at a cost of foreclosure to the home owner. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX I have not received a response yet the FHA states Lenders are responsible to determine if any repairs will be required to meet HUD Handbook standards. Lenders are reminded they are responsible for the acts of their agents, including appraisers When lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers, lenders are expected to use professional judgment and rely upon prudent underwriting practices in determining when a property condition requires additional inspections or repairs. \n\nConditions that would warrant additional repairs include those that pose a threat to the safety of the occupants, jeopardize the soundness and structural integrity of the property, or adversely affect the likelihood of a low- or moderate-income borrower from becoming a successful homeowner. \n\nIn the appraisers responses during discovery to my attorney and Is requests for communication with the appraisal management company she provided documentation from XXXX XXXX stating Cardinal needs to perform an appraisal compliant to FHA rules and regulations to determine the property does not qualify on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX Cardinal Financial has refused to do so. \n\nBoth the FHA and Cardinal have attempted to deflect to my personal home inspection.\n\nTodays question : Is a home inspection required when using an FHA mortgage loan?\n\nThe short answer is no. \nAgain, this quote comes from HUD, which is the federal department that oversees the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance program. They are the official source for all guidelines and requirements relating to this program. And their disclosure clearly states that a home inspection is not required when using an FHA loan. \nFor a Federal Housing Administration ( FHA ) loan to be approved, the home must pass an FHA inspection and appraisal. That means it must be worth the purchase price and have such basics as electricity, drinkable water, adequate heat, a stable roof, fire exits and more. \nThey have also insultingly provided me with a document I signed entitled For your protection get a home inspection which directly contradicts the FHA appraisal definition by stating An appraisal is different from a home inspection and does not replace a home inspection. Appraisals estimate the value of the property for lenders. An appraisal is required to ensure the property is marketable. Home inspections evaluate the condition of the home for buyers. \n\nNote this document conveniently leaves out the following. \n\nFHA : When an FHA loan is being used, the appraiser has two objectives. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) requires him to determine the current market value, as with any appraisal. But they also require a property inspection to make sure the home meets HUD 's minimum standards for health and safety.\n\nThe FHA appraisal process is unique in that the appraiser basically performs double-duty as both an appraiser and an inspector.\n\nWhen you use a Conventional loan to buy a house, your appraiser is mainly concerned about the current market value of the property. But when you use a federally-insured FHA loan , the appraiser has two objectives : Determine the houses value, and inspect it to make sure it meets minimum standards for health and safety set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ).\n\nThe real difference between the two is the level of inspection that HUD requires in order to fund the loan.\n\nIt goes on to state If you find problems with your new home after closing, FHA can not give or lend you money for repairs, and FHA can not buy the home back from you. Ask a qualified home inspector to inspect your potential new home and give you the information you need to make a wise decision. \n\nFinding problems with your home after closing is profoundly different from finding an error in the appraisal that would have disqualified the home and the loan from funding. \n\nTo be clear this is not about a broken or working septic system for that matter. My realtor myself nor my home inspector know or are required to know or verify minimum property requirements pertaining to lending approvals. The lender and appraiser are the only parties required to do so. This home did not qualify based on minimum distance requirements, not due to a broken septic system. Despite this fact, Cardinals latest stall/drain tactic is to add the seller, an investor, who never lived in the home, who listed the property correctly as well and septic and is not responsible for determining if the property qualifies for the loan, to the lawsuit in attempts to shift liability, which will not only add time that we are living in a health hazardous home but more finances I do not have. It is beyond immoral that a bank would rather spend thousands and put the consumer through XXXX to prove liability when presented with a blatant error that has placed them in a financial hardship and environmentally unsafe living conditions rather than use that money to make it right. Cardinal Financial is the definition of Greed and the FHA the definition of false advertisementXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  negligence, Cardinals lack of underwriting and the FHAs lack of resolution and accountability have caused great harm and hardship on my children and I and we can not financially, mentally or physically take another year of living amongst raw sewage and without the simple peace of mind of having clean water or a safe home for us to live in. My dream of being a home owner has been demolished. I no longer have the money to pursue them due to having to use my finances for a safe place to live, nor do I have the money to fix it and selling would not gain the amount of money the loan was obtained for. Just to get out of the situation would require filing for bankruptcy and all the repercussions that come with it. This has to be prevented from happening to anyone else. This error went through multiple entities uncaught by simply checking the incorrect box and just because a person does not have the means to pursue them does not mean they should get away with negligence that causes someone to lose their home. I am curious how many people have suffered at the incompetence of XXXX XXXX XXXX and Cardinals lack of underwriting and at the very least I would like them to order a second FHA appraisal to determine the home did not qualify and for the FHA to implement checks and balances to prevent this from happening, to not only hold their lenders accountable, but also close the loophole that causes great harm to the borrower. They can not claim they are committed to the occupants safety security and soundness of the home as well as anything that would adversely affect the likelihood of a low or moderate income borrower from becoming a successful homeowner yet refuse to enforce the regulations in place to ensure that.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-19T16:16:51.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"775XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7001193","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP","date_received":"2023-05-19T16:09:35.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I no longer have the <em>money</em> to pursue them due to having to use my finances for a safe place to live, nor do I have the <em>money</em> to fix it and selling would not gain the <em>amount</em> of <em>money</em> the loan was obtained for. Just to get out of the situation would require filing for bankruptcy and all the repercussions that come with it. This has to be prevented from happening to anyone else."]},"sort":[6.2775106,"7001193"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22083328","_score":6.2406044,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"The company ( Wells Fargo ) responses are total XXXX!! They are not addressing the issues of their mismanagement of my account. There are 2 significant errors that lead to this entire situation and they are 100 % rsponsible for those errors, MISAPPROPRIATION OF MY PROPERLY SUBMITTED P & I FUNDS and A FRAUDULENTLY SUBMITTED COURT FILING.\n\n1 ) They redirected one of the payments I made for the monthly P & I to a third party company who had no business or rights to receive those funds. This created a situation where every payment I made after that transaction was \" late '' and they charged me late fees for it for 3 years, while I disputed the transaction. That payment was NOT DUE to the 3rd party becasue they did NOT OWN the property during this time and my funds were illegally sent to them. Wells Fargo redirected my timely payment from XX/XX/XXXX. The payment was alledgedly owed for XX/XX/XXXX, but the 3rd party transferred ownership to Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, so they clearly did not own the property nor have any right to any sort of payment. There is a purchase contract that proves this as well as Wells Fargo 's Billing statement from XX/XX/XXXX that also confirms the ownership transfer. Wells Fargo misappropriated my properly submitted P & I funds to a Non-Associated 3rd party wihich, in my humble opinion, is THEFT.\n\n2 ) Wells Fargo began charging me for a FORCED Home Owners Insurance Policy in XX/XX/XXXX. This was 100 % UNNECESSARY, as I had full and complete coverage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for 100 % of the time in question. I proved this to Wells Fargo with the assistance of XXXX XXXX and there is NO DOUBT that I was properly insured for the time period in question. I have emails from Wells Fargo CONFIRMING my XXXX XXXX insurance, but Wells Fargo inappropriately used this false billing to \" manufacture '' some sort of billing shortage, as they took my monthly P & I payments, which I made 100 % ON TIME, and paid this bogus and totally unnecessary forced insurance policy premiums for 9 months.\n\nThese 2 noted factors are 100 % accurate and easily provable using Wells Fargo 's own billing statements. I have pointed this out to them numerous times and they refuse to acknowledge the truth. Their Office of Executive Management, who is reviewing all this, is either corruprt or just plain stupid. Anyone with 1 oz. of common sense can see that they are 100 % wrong in these 2 key issues.\n\n3 ) This is probably the most aggregious action that Wells Fargo has taken. They used these 2 totally false scenarios, noted above, to file a FALSE FORECLOSURE on my property. The \" evidence '' they have submitted to the 53rd District Court for this foreclosure is 100 % false and a complete and total fabrication of the actual facts. THIS IS A FRAUDULENT LAWSUIT/FORECLOSURE!!\n\nThey have blocked me from making payments during this process and created an actual arears situation, which I have tried to resolve with their Home Preservation team, but they are extremely uncooperative. \nI am a 100 % XXXX Veteran and I swear on my Oath that these are the TRUE facts, 100 %, and I will not be bullied by Wells Fargo when they are in the wrong. Their Executive Office is not investigating anything and they refuse to acknowledge their significant error in this matter. They are submitting a bunch of mumbo jumbo XXXX as evidence, that they are correct and they are clouding the actual REAL issues in this matter.\n\nWells Fargo is making a MOCKERY of this whole appeals process and they are not participating in good faith to resolve these issues, which could easily be fixed.\n\nThey are 100 % at fault and have filed fraudulent court documents!! They are basically trying to steal my home or force me into a situation where I owe them a significantly increased amount of money. The loan in question was a simple HELOC loan with the noted 3rd party vendor. They did purchase this loan and I believe the reason they are pursuing all this made up XXXX is becasue the rate on the original note in question is only 2.61 %. They are losing money on this loan and they are trying to change that with these activities. I have a letter from their Home Preservation Dept which basically confirms/indicates that the 2.61 % rate is a problem.\n\nI WILL NOT QUIT FIGHTING WELLS FARGO BECAUSE THEY ARE 100 % WRONG and I WILL NOT BE A VICTIM!!\n\nSupport info Wells Fargo continues to refuse to provide useful and accurate responses to the new problems I have noted in my CFPB complaints. They are simply replying with the same inaaccurate information they have submitted previously. They have not personally contatced me in over 120 days and are not accurately addressing my concerns or working to resolve the numerous issues I have noted in my complaint ( s ).\n\nThe situation with their inaccuracies during the payment and insurance/escrow process are fixable, if they would simply acknowledge their errors and correct them. This has gone on for over a year and could have been resolved in the first 60 days ( XX/XX/XXXX ) if they would fix the problems they caused. I have noted that thier own billing documents 100 % fully support my claims of inproprities in their billing and escrow process. They accepted, then misapplied 10 of my P & I payments and manufactured a scenario where I appeared to be deficient in my payments, but that is 100 % inaccurate. They used my P & I payments for other than standard or necessary activities. If they correct the 2 main issues regarding my payments, this whole issue could be resolved. They refuse to even acknowledge any responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on them. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and they misapplied these payments and this is NOT disputable!! I have submitted the prove to them previously. They need to fix that.\n\nAs a result of their noncompliance with my requests for repair, I am now filing a Motion to Dismiss their fraudulent Foreclose lawsuit. I will use thier own documents to prove to the court that their lawsuit is false, based on the misrepresentation/distortion of the facts. I will also file a counter lawsuit for repair of the damages I have incurred as a result of their inappropriate actions. They have 14 days from me filing this complaint ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with CFPB to actually reach out to me and in good faith work to resolve the issues they have created in this fiasco. I am a 100 % XXXX Veteran with XXXX years of service to my country and I have rights and deserve to be treated properly by Wells Fargo XXXX in a fair and just manner. They have refused/ignored my requests for resolution to this matter for months and I will tolerate it no longer. My motion to dismiss based on fraudulent information/documentation will be filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWells Fargo is not addressing or properly responding to the issues I am raising. They continue to resubmit the same response and info that is false and not approriate or accurate to the issues I am raising. Nothing can be resolved if Wells Fargo will not properly address their errors and work to resolve them. To date, they are simply repeating the same inaccurate lies. I will not go away until they work to address and resolve the 100 % accurate issues i am presenting. They have lied on multiple issues and committed fraud by submitting a false petition to the court in regard to the foreclosure lawsuit. \nMy points are 100 % accurate and Wells Fargo continues to ignore them. I NEVER missed a payment and they used my P & I payments for nofarious purposes. \n\nWells Fargo continues to fail to properly respond to my legitimate complaint about their conflict resolution process. I have asked for the complaint to be escalated and reviewed by their legal department and I have requested information from phone calls that has yet to be provided. They have not properly responded to any of this. They are blatantly trying to abuse this process and are failing to address their inappropriate actions, which I have documented with significant proof ( ACTUAL BILLING STATEMENTS ). I will continue to file complaints until they actually respond, in detail, to the information provded in this complaint. They are not above the law, but they are certainly acting like they are and it is disgusting. Wells Fargo STOLE my P & I payments and used them for inappropriate purposes other than payments and then created a false narrative in order to file a Ficticious Foreclosure Lawsuit. They have provided all sorts of nonsensical information that does not apply to my complaint, of which the details ar enoted below. Wells Fargo is refusing to acknowledge their accountability in the issues I have presented. They have lied and created false scenarios that do not address my complaint. They filed a foreclosure lawsuit against me using false data, false numbers and created a scenario that looked like I was at fault or some sort of dead beat, but it is all lies. Now they are dodging any sort of real response by repeating the same lies. They are creating a paperwork smoke screen that is designed to direct attention away from their fraudulent activities and the filing of a Foreclosure lawsuit based on false data and these lies. The CFPB is not holding them accountable and they are simply lying to get out of doing the right thing. I will continue to file complaints until they actually acknowledge what occurred and correct their mistakes. I have proven that they misappropriated funds that I sent to them and used them for inappropriate activities on my account. They charged me for services that I did not need and then did not refund the money and claimed that I was in default. This is absolutely false and thier own documents, billing statements, prove that I am 100 % correct and they continue to hide the truth by dragging in non-sensical issues like XXXX XXXX. This was a simple HELOC that they bought from a 3rd party and not a government supported mortgage. Never was, but they are trying to say it is and ignoring the facts of what they have done to this 100 % XXXX Veteran after I served my country for 30 years.. I have asked them to escalate this to a higher authority and they claim to have no higher authority than these mindless robots who just keep repeating the same lies. I can and have proven, using thier own billing documents, that they misappropriated funds that I sent in to pay the P & I on my loan. I never missed a payment, they simply rerouted my payments to false \" entities '' and then wanted more money from me. Regardless, they mis-used funds that I sent to them and created a false deficit and are hiding behind a bunch of data that does not even apply to the situation I want addressed. I would like to hear from their Legal Department and see what they have to say about the mis-appropriation of my funds and the lies the Executive Office is putting forth. The bottom line is that I sent in 100 % of my payments. They used those payments for other that approriate activities. I had Home Owners insurance 100 % of my time with them and I, along with XXXX XXXX, have proven this.They took my P & I payments to pay some outrageous totally unnecessary insurance policy claiming that I had no insurance at all. They have most certainly broken the law, in my opinion, with some of this fund redistribution activity and filing a Lawsuit using this false data. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and that is indisputable and easily provable. They have recorded customer service phone calls that I made to them, that back up my allegations and they won't acknowledge or provide the call data. They lied to a District Court to get a Foreclosure Lawsuit filed against me and used false \" evidence '' to make it appear that I was in the rears, I was NOT!! I will continue to file CFPB complaints against them until I get some resolution in this matter and I am notifying XXXX XXXX about their illegal activities toward a Highly Decorated 100 % XXXX Veteran of the XXXX XXXX. I want a response from their Legal Department in regard to their activites, including filing a Fraudulent Lawsuit in District Court. I can prove my points to be 100 % accurate using their own billing statements and I can prove they are lying. Wells Fargo is corrupt, in my opinion and experience, and they have been in trouble with the government and legal authorites many times prior to his instance. They pay fines and then go right back to thier past activites. It's time for it to stop!!","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-11T18:26:47.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"786XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22083328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-11T18:19:13.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They are basically trying to steal my home or force me into a situation where I owe them a significantly increased <em>amount</em> of <em>money</em>. The loan in question was a simple HELOC loan with the noted 3rd party vendor. They did purchase this loan and I believe the reason they are pursuing all this made up XXXX is becasue the rate on the original note in question is only 2.61 %. They are losing <em>money</em> on this loan and they are trying to change that with these activities."]},"sort":[6.2406044,"22083328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3147990","_score":6.007842,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I believe my bank, Navy Federal may be in violation of Regulation X, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other LRR.\n\nI recently purchased a home through Navy Federal, beside their processes clearly being broken, i.e., pulling my credit when applying for the loan with delays in getting back to me as far as any approval or next steps. Not sure if this falls under Regulation Z, Truth In Lending Act.\n\nAt any rate I believe a thorough investigation is needed to ensure that the bank if adhering to Laws, Rules and Regulations ( LRR ). I suspect I am not the only customer that is or has experience this, but I am aware that the CFPB investigates this types of discrepancies.\n\nBackground : I applied for a new mortgage loan with Navy Federal in XX/XX/XXXX, delays transpired with a representative contacting me although they were happy to charge me for pulling my credit.\n\nAgainst, better judgment I decided to switch my lender to process my loan to Navy Federal, I informed them that I wanted a close date of XX/XX/XXXX. They ensured me that this is possible as it was greater than 30 days.\n\nFast forward to what I believe to be a violation, Reg X my initial closing disclosure was sent at the end of business XX/XX/XXXX for a closing on XX/XX/XXXX. As soon as I got the document I saw many huge errors, which raised concerns as the bank does closing disclosures all the time, I understand if the title company fees may be overstated as they are still working them out, but what I can not understand is the bank gun decking and not accurately reporting terms from the sale contract between myself and the seller. It took me less than 15 minutes to see the huge errors. I informed Navy Federal of this, they did not send an updated closing disclosure until end of business XX/XX/XXXX. These numbers were still incorrect and again took me minutes to see. I contacted the bank no one could explain the closing disclosure to me. My closing had already been set for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. So basically I was going into closing knowing that my bank had performed no due diligence on the closing disclosure which does not take long to execute. All the bank did was try to place blame on the title company, I am familiar with the process and understand the title company numbers are driven by the bank with the exception of the title companies fees, that being said why is Navy Federal conducted business in an unethical manner? Why are they lying to customers and why are they allowed to gun deck closing disclosure which I thought were to provide transparency in the mortgage process to the customer? The manner in which Navy Federal conducted business is the same that causes the mortgage crash in XX/XX/XXXX.\n\nNavy Federal behavior led me to sitting in closing for over 5 hours because they elected not to adhere to LRR. Even after this was pointed out to them, they took their sweet time. At the closing we ( attorney, agent and myself ) had to continue to call and email the bank to see how they were correcting their numbers. It is like the bank had four days to get me an accurate closing disclosure. Why is Navy Federal allowed 4 days and other banks must provide it in 3 days? If the point of the closing disclosure is to provide borrowers with pertinent and timely disclosures regarding the nature and costs of the real estate settlement process. I do not believe that I was provided with pertinent and timely disclosures for the cost relating to my transaction. Navy Federal Closing Disclosures did not include all monies received by the borrower which proof was provided with enough time for the bank to have this properly documented. The title owner premium was spelled out in the contract as the seller fees, NF charged this to me on the CD. The seller was provided 3 % closing cost, NF elected to modify this without my approval or knowledge. I was not informed that a bank could modify the terms of a sales contract. I do understand that fees could be overstated ( title company ) but I was under the belief that the final closing disclosure should be relatively close, my was not. I have been in closing and small changes made which took minutes. Navy Federal mishaps should have never occurred these were on the bank, they gun deck the closing disclosure absolutely no due diligence.\n\nI was charged twice for an appraisal, one which was authorized during the process and another NOT authorized charged after closing on XX/XX/XXXX. I am not sure if this falls under Reg X, but I am believe this is or should be a violation as well.\n\nOne of the issues that was pointed out in XX/XX/XXXX that it may be a surplus, in XX/XX/XXXX the bank stated that the surplus would go to principal payment. Even after I sat in closing for over 5 hours, Navy Federal overstated my principal payment to the credit bureaus, while not Reg X, I believe it is a LRR for this as well just unsure and do not have the bandwidth to find which LRR it falls under.\n\nHow is this bank allowed to do the aforesaid? I am fortunate to understand the process somewhat but most customers have no idea when their bank are not adhering LRR. This is not the manner any bank should function, I do not want any customer to have to experience the stress and any loss of money because Navy Federal believes that adhering to LRR is optional! My stress is not over as the bank is still not corrected the principal balance, it was on the updated closing disclosure how many screw ups are the banks allowed. Why am I the customer having to keep inspecting their work? At this rate I should be paid partial salary for hours spend on work that Navy Federal was supposed to do, they are not my employer.\n\nNote : loss of money was due to sitting in closing for 5 hours while my movers had to wait around until Navy Federal corrected the closing disclosure.\n\nI did contact the bank and detail how they failed see below, message to Navy Federal.\n\nI am very dissatisfied with the service Navy Federal provided, this loan ended the same way it started with issues and poor customer service.\n\nWhen I applied for the loan Navy Federal failed to reach out to move forward. When I was finally contacted XXXX was very rude and she hung up on me just because I asked her to repeat herself. Then an associate who stayed she was her boss called XXXX, we got through a lot of her questions we got disconnected I called back even left a voicemail but never heard from her. I had to contact Navy fed again since I was charged for credit pull and didn't receive any services for the pull.\n\nFinally XXXX   XXXX reached out and expressed they were sorry for the events transpired. She stated Navy Federal wanted my business and would do what they could to turn things around as this is not how Navy Federal conduct business.\n\nPerhaps this is my fault for believing Navy Federal would provide me a good experience after dropping the ball and I shouldve stayed with my initial lender XXXX XXXX. I was still afraid to switch and even during the process navy federal wasn't organized and didn't communicate well either.\n\n1. From an organization perspective I the borrower had to initially stalk Navy Federal after the fees for credit pull was taking to get a status and to move the application along even with me asking for a rush.\n\n2. Documents were constantly being requested that were previously sent which caused delays in processing.\n\n3. Documents were being requested in one offs that are part of a process i.e., master condo policies COI etc. These were nothing specific to me as a buyer but as the banks process for Condos, so all documents should been have asked for up front same as the initial W2, tax documents.\n\n4. The personnel that were processing the loan rarely acknowledge receipt of requested documents from buyer or agent office.\n\n5. The condo questionnaire that was requested with less than a two day turnaround was sent them it sat on someone desk, no out of office reply alerting the agent office to contact someone else to keep the loan moving.\n\n6. The asking for incorrect document needed again is like the bank had no clue on what is required for an internal process, creating more delays as everyone ( myself and agent office ) was very responsive with all request even those duplicated.\n\n7. The initial cd was gun decked NO DUE DILIGENCE at all, I guess associates are more concerned about getting home than doing things correctly, as I got this at the end of business day. Then me as the borrower with 15min saw huge mistakes that took still took Navy Federal forever to correct. How can a borrower find errors quickly but associates that do this task day end and day out send one with so many errors?\n\n8. The final disclosure was also incorrect AGAIN NO DUE DILIGENCE and sent at the very end of the work day 4:30 CST. No one could answer any questions to explain the CD to me. Then the blame game started with Navy Federal trying to put the items I had questions on to the title company. This is not my first closing, this is however the first time a lender was not able to answer my questions on the CD.\n\n9. The day of closing the CD is still incorrect hold up my entire closing and the root cause goes back to the initial problem poor customer service. I sat in closing for over 5 hours, approximately 8:25-1:25 and all the documents were signed before 9am except for the closing disclosure.\n\nWe ( lawyer, agent and myself ) contacted Navy Federal immediately when the title company alerted us that Navy Federal was unwilling to make the changes needed. I made contact with XXXX  as he and XXXX were the associates that indicated that surplus would be appropriated to the loan amount. He answered his phone initially and we ( lawyer, agent and myself ) had to keep stalking/calling Navy Federal to see whats going on.\n\nI heard from XXXX but as hours went passed I heard nothing from Navy Federal. When XXXX finally responded I finally hears back it was over 3 hours later after numerous emails and calls to the bank. I literally had to stalk Navy Federal which is exactly how my loan started. No apologies no update to keep me in the loop. The only updates I got was from the title company on all the bizarre changes Navy Federal was trying to do.\n\nIt is beyond my comprehension how the bank would change who pays the title owner premium as it is outlined in the contract. It is clear it is paid by the seller. In addition to the bank modifying number, they reduced the seller credit to me, again this is in the contract.\n\nIt was identified in the beginning ( XX/XX/XXXX) that it looks like there will be overage and in that event that occurred the remaining amount would be applied to the principal. This was stated in the very beginning XX/XX/XXXX and reiterated on XX/XX/XXXX in writing I have an email. As a customer I can not understand how my bank would do something like this to any customer and not even feel compelled to ever reach out and say something. The only time in over 4 hours I heard from the bank was when my agent or I called. Navy Federal mistake should not have been passed down to me and it also cost me money. Since Navy Federal decided to gun deck my loan, I had to pay those extra hours my movers while I was stuck in closing.\n\nThis was a quick fix. Move the title owners premium to the seller side as stated in the executed contract and update the seller credit back to the contract on the CD. Navy Federal credits could have simply been completed on Navy Federal after closing.\n\nThese are just a high level overview that capture some of the mishaps that occurred as I do not have the time to document them all since there were so many! Sending a CD should not be at the end of business day especially when it is already late. A CD should not take 3 days and on the 4th day my closing still be incorrect. I understand minor changes as I have seen them at previous closing but they were all resolved in minutes. I still regret choosing Navy Federal over XXXX, this was horrible experience and I would not wish this on anyone. Navy Federal has been my primary bank for years, it is apparent that I need to change that. I am beyond upset at how I was treated.\n\nNavy Federal personnel I had interactions with during this loan, the behind the scene associates I do not know but as a group Navy Federal failed me big time and cost me more money as my movers were by the hour and Navy Federal took 4.5 of them minus the .5 that we actually signed documents.\n\nNote : XXXX  was the only person to apologize although it was literally after sitting in the closing for over 4 hours, it was nice to hear someone say Navy Federal was at fault.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( do not have last name ) but he is the associate that kept telling the title company he didnt know how to do task.\n\nXXXX ( She was XXXX  fill in person on Thursday as he was not there when the final CD was provided ).\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX manager I believe XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-02-10T15:02:58.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"60653","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3147990","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2019-02-10T14:49:28.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I made contact with XXXX  as he and XXXX were the associates that <em>indicated</em> that surplus would be appropriated to the loan <em>amount</em>. He answered his phone initially and we ( lawyer, agent and myself ) had to keep stalking/calling Navy Federal to see whats going on.\n\nI heard from XXXX but as hours went passed I heard nothing from Navy Federal. When XXXX finally responded I finally hears back it was over 3 hours later after numerous emails and calls to the bank."]},"sort":[6.007842,"3147990"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9649035","_score":5.4823256,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Lets begin this with the most important thing...\n\nYOU HAVE GONE INTO YOUR SYSTEM AND CHANGED LEGAL DOCUMENTS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN XX/XX/XXXX AND XX/XX/XXXX. YOU HAVE REMOVED THE DOUBLE DEBITS, YOU HAVE ADDED DESCRIPTIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE WRONG THEY HAVE BEEN ADDED AND NOT SEEN PRIOR TO XXXX XXXX. THE BANK DEPOSITS AND CREDITS HAVE ALL BEEN CHANGED BY YOU WHY IS THAT? I WAS SENT THIS PAPERWORK XX/XX/XXXX VIA EMAIL BY XX/XX/XXXX IT HAS ALL BEEN CHANGED COMPARE THE TWO. IS THIS LEGAL ARE YOU ALLOWED TO REMOVE AND REWRITE A DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN SENT OUT PRIOR. I TOLD YOU WHY I LIKED HAVING THIS SENT AND THE GUY ON THE OTHER END NOT KNOWING WHY BECAUSE HE SENT ME REAL TRUE DOCUMENTS AND NOT THE NEW AND IMPROVED YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO PASS OFF. YOU HAVE CHANGED REMOVED REWRITTEN MY BANK TRANSACTIONS. YOU HAVE ADDED THINGS LIKE STORE RETURN. DO YOU SEE THE VET YOU ADDED AS A STORE RETURN?? UM ITS MY VET WHAT XXXX XXXX  CAN I RETURN TO THEM? YOU SCREWED UP AND PICKED RANDOM TRANSACTIONS AND MADE UP WHAT HAPPENED WITH THEM. XXXX IS ANOTHER XXXX  IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN RETURN? YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING CHANGES THAT STICK OUT LIKE YOURS DO. A VET RETURN AND A XXXX XXXX. \n\nI DONT BELIEVE YOU CAN GO IN AND REMOVE DEBITS FROM MY ACCOUNT CAN YOU? CAN YOU MAKE UP STATEMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS LIKE YOU HAVE? I THINK THESE NOW BECOME FALSE RECORDS. RIGHT? I AM GOING TO CHECK HERE AND SHOW THE CFPB, THIS IS WAS SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I THINK THE OCC AND THE FTC THIS IS LIKE FORGERY MAYBE ITS YOU WHO TOOK MY MONEY YOU DID HAVE SOME INHOUSE PEOPLE STEALING DURING COVID. AND YOUVE HAD TO COVER AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND MAKE CHANGES THAT BEHOOVE YOU. AGAIN I THINK THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW. I TOO WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE XXXX AND CHECKING WITH THEM. FORGERY XXXX  ITS MUST FALL UNDER SOMETHING BECASE YOU JUST CANT ERASE HISTORY RIGHT??? AND THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. SHOCKED IS WHAT I AM. I TOO WILL BE CHECKING IN WITH AN ATTORNEY. YOU HAVE REMOVED AND ADDED TO SUIT YOU. GOOD THING I SAVE EVERYTHING BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE CANT BE LEGAL AT ALL. AND ITS ATTACHED TO THIS COMPLIANT Looking at the letters you have attached to your reply here. You are correct, the last time I wrote to complain about Bank of America was XX/XX/XXXX2 when I complained right here on the CFPB : I have my own copy and did not need you to send me anything.\n\nYou are very confused as far as the claims go You have turned my old XXXX XXXX claims into brand new ones. Nothing is new, nothing has been added or changed since my police report. And if any changes were made, t hey were done by you, not me. \n\nI spoke to XXXX XXXX supervisor in XXXX and she told me that none of my original bank statements were available anymore I was connected to and emailed a copy of debits and credits .It is XXXX pages.. I would like an explanation as to why there are double debits for nearly every transaction? I would like my account to be refunded for the double debits. \n\nXXXX XXXX Attachments Mon, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX to me Thank you for contacting prepaid customer service. The statement ( s ) you have requested are attached. As a reminder, you can view past statements online at any time by visiting the website printed on the back of your card.\n\nPlease do not reply to this message, you will not receive a response. If you need further assistance, please contact Prepaid Card Customer Service at the number on the back of the card.\n\nThank you, Bank of America Customer Service I have not been able to view statements online for years now. Your system says I am puting in the wrong SS # Just tried it again. No luck! \n\nYou are misinformed by thinking that the money I got back was on returns??? XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Dentist, my vet??? Come on really??? those are not returns!! That is called double debit or fraud. Probably hard for you to tell the difference when youre looking at a map to base your decision on a claim. Looking at a map, viewing shopping habits seems a bit outdated. dont you think? And if you dont live in XXXX  you could not base a decision on a claim by viewing a map.. Take a look at the photo of a typical day. Why dont you see where the closest BofA is to my home??? You could see I could walk a block and be at an ATM. XXXX seems a bit far. As does anywhere else. I know that my IP address was not the IP address used for the online shopping portion of the fraud. I was told that already. I was also told that I am happy you brought up refunds. I don't show a single store refund for my XXXX and XXXX returns. Where is the credit for my store returns? I have continued to ask where they are. \n\nI believe you feel youre delivering the info requested by me, But, youre not! Let me explain what I need from you another way. You have issued claims numbers to me. The claims decisions that arrived to me XX/XX/XXXX. Now when were those claims opened?? In XXXX This is where the problem is and the time of 3.5 years has gone by..\n\nLooking at the decision letters you sent from XX/XX/XXXX we have Claim # XXXX {$2500.00} Claim # XXXX {$6600.00} Claim # XXXX {$1700.00} These are not new claims. Your decision was to deny all of them. I asked what you based your decision on. But more importantly I asked you to send me the transactions under each of the claims numbers. I wanted the transactions under each one of the claims which I would assume would total the dollar amount. I was sent 20 pages of transactions totaling over XXXX. Not correct. I have never had that much fraud on this account. This was sent as your proof of what??? How you went sideways with this and made a mess???? 20 pages where 90 % are true legit transactions shows me nothing. Please send what I have requested and that is once again the transactions under each of the claims numbers above that match the dollar amount of the claim. Since XXXX XXXX XXXX which is when the above were opened to present the dollar amount has changed. Having these transactions and the dollar amounts will give me a more clear picture of what's transpired. I can also check off the list the places that have sent me my money back. And they werent store returns as your letter to the CFPB states. \n\n\nMy email to XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX we had made it down to close to XXXX so things were moving in the right direction. XXXX XXXX put a gentleman in charge, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; he was like XXXX XXXX but at a very high level He then in turn got XXXX XXXX involved and those two were supposed to be with me until this issue was solved. They had my police report, the list of transactions, the name of the private owner of the ATM. They, like the others in the prepaid claims, knew that video and photos were available. All anyone had to do was request it. And nobody did. WHY???? \n\n\nXX/XX/XXXX you were sent a police report which discussed my computer hacking my personal bank account that was wiped clean, another credit card being used as well as my concerns about my identity. The difference between Bank of America and my other creditor is that the other who I have been with for over 30 years could clearly see the fraud. Now they would know my shopping activity and habits. You, not at all. I was spending to save my business, not a typical shop day out with the girls. You are blind to the fraudt! Keep in mind you thought it was possible for me to be at a XXXX dentist. An ATM in XXXX and a shopping spree at XXXX XXXX within the same 30 minutes. Does this make sense????? Does it fit your map theory?\n\nNow I am told that youve not taken into consideration my police report?? You need to factor that in. It is huge!! XXXX in XXXX XXXX  saw it three weeks ago.I asked him about it and he said it is sitting in front of those who make big decisions Go and check the call. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. They all had it. How did you lose it? Seems to me to be just as important and if not more important than the statements that have been tampered with. Is this how your bank operates? They dont like something that is not in their favor and its deleted or changed??\n\nAt the start your 24 hour turn around denied claims were being run through an auto feeder that has since been ruled by a judge that it cant be done.\n\nYou say in your response to the CFPB that you have reevaluated my claims. No you have not because that would take more than pulling out your map and deciding how close I lived to the transaction when you decide its mine. It would also take the merchants knowing that there are some fraud concerns and you failed to do that with any of the merchants back when this began and now like I have said the hands of time are not on my side. How did you expect for merchants to hang on to this for 4 years? Just because you arrive late to the party doesnt mean it starts over. I have said this in many faxes and emails to XXXX XXXX. The merchants no longer have to do a thing when the time limit has passed. This is up to you making this right. so please quit making up stories.\n\nIt took you 3.5 years to get back to me on the above claims that is excessive. When I heard from you it was XX/XX/XXXX. And that is why this has remained open. Let me share what I have NEVER DONE. I have never called and to give mass amounts of fraudulent transactions like your letter claims I have. That would never happen in this lifetime. I called and gave you my opening three. Sitting 4-6 hours on hold was not my cup of tea. I would fax, email, USPS and every blue moon call and speak to someone but this was never to opeb up disputes. I have never phoned you and added 65 transactions on top of multiple others! You had my police report and it was laid out beautifully as to what needed to be disputed. You should have been going down my police report transaction to transaction. There was a total of about XXXX at its very highest!!! Where or how you are coming up with XXXX, XXXX is absurd and nothing I have given to you. \n\nYou opened multiple new claims between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and denied because we identified multiple factors that indicate that the transactions were authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card as indicated in our previous correspondence I did not open up multiple new claims between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Those claims are the old fraudulent transactions youve failed to take care of. There was nothing new about them!!! And you need to get together with your XXXX division, the prepaid claims, XXXX  which is your payor and the executive team. I was sent a list of transactions by your prepaid claims division. They asked me to highlight the fraud I did. This was nothing new, these were the same transactions I have continued to say are not mine since XXXX. \n\nDuring our investigation the transactions were within your geographical location, including online purchases, there were no failed PIN attempts, the spending pattern was consistent with disputed and non-disputed transactions There goes your map theory, a theory that is clearly broken and should not be used to determine anything!!! Do you live in XXXX? Because if you dont you cant say that anything is close to me! It could take 45 minutes to go a mile!\n\nThose of you doing the map theory are also experts on my spending habits?? If that is true they should see that I dont spend {$700.00} on\nshopping sprees nor do I frequent XXXX XXXX XXXX yet they claim those are my transactions!! XXXX is not mine and there is nothing to return to XXXX. All XXXX transactions needed to be sent back so could you get on that? XXXX that too not mine I have a store I sell on many platforms I do not use XXXX or XXXX and those all need to be refunded back to my XXXX card. \n\nI am so tired of you accusing me of giving my card to someone else!! Do share what card that would be. I have only my original card and the two others you speak of never come here .They have never been in my possession, they were not activated or used by me!!!! You have only sent me XXXX card.\n\nthere is a history of cancelled/returned items which resulted in a credit from the merchant on disputed transactions, WRONG Again this is where you are very wrong!!! But now that youve brought up cancelled and returned items where are my returned items?? I should have XXXX XXXX XXXX. I don't see them anywhere. I would like to know how you have more XXXX transactions than I do with XXXX??? n tell you XXXX not a return XXXX, not a return XXXX XXXX, they were waiting to hear from you!!! ATM in XXXX? Privetly owned I gave you the name of the place that owns the ATM. I also said you have 90 days to grab those photos that they had., XXXX, XXXX based stores, XXXX XXXX based companies not mine!!! XXXX not mine, Do I once again need to send the transactions that still need to be sent back to my XXXX card. I actually dont do that because I have my original card. XXXX they forgot to deliver so a refund is needed. etc??? You have also failed to issue credits for my store returns. \n\n\" In addition, for claim XXXX that included ATM transactions there was no ATM footage available due to the age of the transactions '' WRONG there was i spoke to the owner of the ATM had footage was available you had 90 days to request it!! You never did. I have an email from the ATM owner and they say they never heard from you. Nobody but me has been in touch. Nice try though And XXXX XXXX they too had video waiting for you and why is the card being used white? I thought they were dark blue? Oh because the gang banger in the video made a card and pounded out numbers on it and is using it!! You see I developed relationships with the merchants I wanted to see when they heard from you and guess what? They never did. You never asked for the videos the photos or you too would have known the card being used in both cases was white. now if memory serves me yours are blue. But you didn't do anything about this because you had it already in your head these were mine. ANd they werent then and they arent today. \n\n\" Since our previous correspondence, your claim XXXX was resolved in your favor and permanent credit was issued to your account on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$100.00}. Please see the enclosed transaction history that reflects these credits. The above claims included the transactions that posted to your account between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and totaled {$8300.00}. Please see the attached document that shows the transactions included in each above claim. On XX/XX/XXXX, the claim XXXX was initiated for transactions totaling {$2500.00}, that posted to your account between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. '' XXXX XXXX police report has the transactions and yours don't add up. I need your help with this. The fraud began around XXXX in XXXX Now its down to XXXX. Yes I have gotten the rest back and it wasn't for store refunds or returns!!! What did you all get back for me? Nothing!!! And being that your departments do not talk, nobody knows from department to department what is being asked of the customer. \n\nStill need store credits for returns on XXXX and XXXX. \nStill need all of XXXX to be returned there should be as many credits as there are XXXX transactions. Same with XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( as you can see these XXXX are the XXXX XXXX  is same day different transactions ) I have never used a XXXX. Or an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX all of them XXXX all of them XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I paid XXXX once and left group XXXX was then billed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  notice two transactions back to back my card used for the next XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX back to back transactions XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is covered in XXXX XXXX amount for fraud still owed to me XXXX XXXX  Again not new items the same as has been on the police report since XXXX. \n\nYour letter states you've seen no pin errors and no checking of balances. I have had pin not been able to use or get into my account for years. I highlighted on your paperwork the balance checks. You must have missed removing this one when you removed the others. I have my original statements coming back from my records storage facility. The entire file will be back in 5 days. I urge you to look for both the many pin errors and balance checking So how can you say that never happened is wrong!!! \n\n\" On XX/XX/XXXX, the claim was reviewed and denied because we identified multiple factors that indicate that the transactions were authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card. During our investigation, prior linked claims indicated that you had possession of the card, no failed PIN attempts, spending pattern is consistent with disputed and non-disputed transactions, there is a history of cancelled/returned items which resulted in a credit from the merchant on disputed transactions, and there was no evidence of aggressive or high velocity of transactions. Thank you for speaking to us in regard to the transactions included in your claims, as discussed, we received your list of transactions that you believe are unauthorized and should be included in your claims. '' There have been no new claims since my police report XX/XX/XXXX so stop with this craziness. \n\nTherefore, the below claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX were initiated NO NEW CLAIMS SINCE XXXXnot sure what you are talking about ..Go doctor up some more documents. XXXX go back to XXXX look at the list it is the very same list today go back to my police report and review the transactions on the police report the transactions that posted to your account between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$12000.00} Wrong!!! Again you are lost. Clueless I have no clue what you are speaking about my police report speaks for itself as does my emails to your CEO. With confirmation of him opening the emails sent and no where has this every been XXXX. Nice try though! \n\n\" Please see the attached document that shows the transactions included in each claim.\n\nIn addition, there was no history of balance inquiries or declined attempts due to insufficient funds or cards being closed, which indicates knowledge of the account and balance '' There were balance checks. Go look at my statements. I can see them and you cant???? Go back and look. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX were initiated for transactions totaling {$5100.00}, {$1800.00}, {$330.00}, {$100.00}, and {$220.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, the claims were reviewed and denied because we identified multiple factors that indicate that the transaction was authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card or account WHAT ARE YOU DOING THESE ARE NOT CLAIMS FROM XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX THESE ARE THE SAME CLAIMS FROM XXXX YOU KEEP GIVING THEM NEW NUMBERS During our investigation we found no evidence of inconsistent aggressive spending or high velocity of transactions, no attempts to use the card after it was closed, and no failed PIN attempts. Its on the paperwork you have attached to your repsonse.\n\nThere were many failed pin attempts I have not been able to get into my online edd account with you for years. It says I am imputing the wrong SS # and wrong card number. This is concerning dont you think?\n\nIn addition, we found no history of balance inquiries, no declined attempts due to insufficient funds or card being closed and there was a pattern of transactions following the card funding where the transactions would stop once the balance was used and start again after new funds were loaded, which indicates knowledge of the account and balance. Weve also included these case documents, which you may find helpful : Previous correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX Claim correspondence Transaction history, with the Transaction Category Description section Transactions for each claim Heres our response Between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, we have sent correspondence to you regarding your claims and our decision for those claims. In addition, we have contacted you by phone multiple times Youve contacted me multiple times?? You are joking right?? The only time my phone has rung and its been you on the other end has been after XX/XX/XXXX prior to that I phoned you and would wait 5 to 6 hours hang up and become frustrated. Which is why I stopped and began to fax, email and USPS.\n\nin regard to your concerns. We did not identify a lengthy period of time in which we did not provide correspondence to you regarding your claims. \n\nHow about from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? Seems like a very longtime to me. \n\n\" Provisional credit was issued for claim XXXX in the amount of {$100.00}. Provisional credit was not issued for the below claims because under Regulation E, we must provide you with a resolution or grant provisional credit to the account within 10 days of filing the claim. We have confirmed that we completed your claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX within that timeframe and your claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX were not eligible because the transactions were over 130 days ''. \n\nXXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX What are the above claim numbers?? Ive not given you anything new, everything in your system has been there since XXXX \" Our XXXX Liability policy will not hold account holders liable for any portion of thedisputed transactions if those transactions are confirmed to be fraudulent. As we found no fraud has occurred for your claims, the XXXX Liability policy would not apply. All evidence available was reviewed when making the decision of your claims. We received information from you between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. We reviewed the documents you provided as evidence to support your claims, including written statements, requests for the evidence we relied on, requests for the transactions included in each claim and copies of claims letters. The police report and list of transactions sent in XX/XX/XXXX mentioned in your correspondence, were not included with your claims and we have no record of receiving them. '' XXXX saw the police report a few weeks ago or so he said when we were talking on the phone go take a listen to that phone call.. Go ask XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX in fact XXXX XXXX connected XXXX XXXX with me and then XXXX XXXX they know all about the police report. The police report and the list of transactions is a huge part of this as stated many times before.\n\n\" If you would like to provide these documents, please fax them to XXXX or mail them to : Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  We strive to resolve each inquiry to our customers satisfaction and each response is based on the facts presented. '' The facts were presented, the police report sent so go find your CEO, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX or XXXX in XXXX XXXX. If you need the police report again it does cost me XXXX I would have to pay which means I float you at this time. It was there three weeks ago its got to be there now.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-29T19:06:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"90034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9649035","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-29T18:04:53.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please send what I have requested and that is once again the transactions under each of the claims numbers above that match the dollar <em>amount</em> of the claim. Since XXXX XXXX XXXX which is when the above were opened to present the dollar <em>amount</em> has changed. Having these transactions and the dollar <em>amounts</em> will give me a more clear picture of what's transpired. I can also check off the list the places that have sent me my <em>money</em> back."]},"sort":[5.4823256,"9649035"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4509093","_score":5.4524198,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"We ( XXXX as the borrower, XXXX as the Co-buyer on the purchase contract ) were approved to purchase a 2nd home in XX/XX/XXXX using 100 % gift funds for closing provided by XXXX. We had a house under contract and cancelled that contract. We were told the application is property specific so we had to start a new application. We re-applied and were re-approved to continue looking for a 2nd  home using 100 % gift funds for closing for the second time. XX/XX/XXXX we finalized contracts on the 2nd property. \n\nThe Loan Officer - XXXX XXXX - NMLS ID XXXX - confirmed on a recorded call with XXXX, myself and XXXX that no borrower contributions were required. XXXX read Chase guidelines for what was needed on gift funds and confirmed when specifically asked about borrower contribution that XXXX  had done away with borrower contributions. XXXX also confirmed on e-mail that he did not know why that 5 % borrower contribution condition was on the loan when it showed up weeks after we submitted our documents. The condition would be removed from our tasks then reappear again days later. XXXX told us the condition showed up because we still needed {$17000.00} funds to close after the {$15000.00} earnest money was wired to title. This number doesnt even make sense. $ XXXX purchase price minus $ XXXX loan amount is $ XXXX ; minus $ XXXX earnest money is $ XXXX. \n\nAt nearly XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX tells us that 5 % was definitely required to be provided by XXXX. This is after the realtors confirmed with Chase that we are approved as the finance contingency was now expired making the $ XXXX deposit non-refundable. XXXX had clearly known long before he called us because he had conversations with the underwriter and spoke to his manager after their meeting earlier that day but did not call us until almost XXXX our time and was also right before he was about the leave the office for the weekend. We questioned him about the earlier conversations and emails that said It was not needed - he stated, My bad, I guess I learned my lesson the hard way and that he is not familiar with XXXX  homes. When asked what would happen with our $ XXXX deposit he stated that we would lose it but he could make a call to the realtor if we wanted him to. \n\nWe asked XXXX about Chase paying us back because he made a mistake on the approval ; and he stated Chase would not and that he may end up with a slap on the wrist. He said 5 % from XXXX was needed because it was a XXXX home. This was the intent the entire process to buy a XXXX home but XXXX provided an approval based on 100 % gift funds which is not allowed on XXXX homes so we actuality never would have been approved on the structure we applied for and we are told after our deposit became non-refundable. He said his manager asked if we could switch to a primary residence because we can do primary residence at 100 % gift funds. We asked if that was even possible to switch. He said yes we can switch and he will talk to the underwriter. During this call - XXXX presented 2 other options - # 1 XXXX has 5 % of the assets but it is in the XXXX so we wanted to know if this is OK or if it had to be liquidated. # 2 was to provide a joint bank statement but XXXX said he did not think we had one but we do have a joint account. So, as XXXX and his manager XXXX suggested, they then switched our loan to primary home and if this was not allowed, we would resolve the condition with option # 2 or # 3 that XXXX presented. \n\nSwitching to a primary residence was not a big deal to us because we planned to move there full time before summer of XXXX but we agreed we would fast forward our plans to move closer to family. XXXX had the VP of her department provide a letter confirming she can work remotely. We were told Monday XX/XX/XXXX that this was all approved as a primary residence. We had 2 outstanding conditions : funds to close of {$17000.00} and for a copy of the remote employee authorization letter which was sent over on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX wired {$17000.00} to the title company the very next day after we received the approval as a primary residence, XX/XX/XXXX, from our joint account. So regardless of occupancy guidelines they choose to apply this satisfies the 5 % contribution from XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX 8 days before closing - there was a status on my account that I need to contact my Mortgage Banker. NOT one person contacted me! I called XXXX had no reasoning. I called XXXX ; he also had no answers. AGAIN, at XXXX on Thursday XXXX called with bad news telling me my loan was suspended. The file was flagged because of the occupancy change. He also says again that he was off Friday and Saturday. He stated that we could try and call someone else but gave no names or phone numbers for anyone! He keeps saying how 'terrible ' he feels for XXXX  things up for offers no help or solutions for anything other than saying we should go after them and keep pursuing it. I am pretty sure if we changed occupancy to an investment property the file would not be questioned or required to provide any documents but when we provide all documents requested to purchase as a primary residence we are declined outright and Chase refuses to do the loan at all now. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX We are trying to reach out to all contacts. Multiple emails and voice mails were left with no response at all from XXXX  manager - XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ID XXXX, XXXX XXXX Team Manager. We finally get XXXX manager and spoke to XXXX XXXX, VP of Lending. XXXX took almost 3 hours to find out the loan is declined but otherwise was completely useless. The Title company is trying to prepare figures and XXXX does his best imitation of a broken record repeating saying we will get a letter in the mail but refuses to provide any information on why. He refuses to acknowledge the mistakes made by his employee - XXXX - that lead us to this point. He refuses to accept any responsibility for his team or acknowledge the fact that we have already invested in the ballpark of $ XXXX to buy a house Chase issued an approval for based on the wrong guidelines. \n\nThis entire loan approval with Chase has been one big misrepresentation by XXXX from the beginning with the initial loan pre-approval. We made multiple trips paying for airline tickets, car rentals, hotel stays while we were looking for a property based on false pretenses because Chase gave us an erroneous approval but did not tell us the true story until after our ability to cancel the contract had passed which made our deposit non-refundable. We spent thousands of dollars on non-refundable deposits for new furniture, landscaping, a hot tub, antique decorations, and now a storage unit because we had an approval in hand and we satisfied all conditions. Chase provided an erroneous approval based on primary residence guidelines when from day 1 when indicated we were buying a XXXX home. When XXXX and his manager tried to cover his mistakes, he caused our file to be declined even though we meet all guidelines. \n\nChase records the phone calls so everything stated here can easily be confirmed by reviewing their phone logs and emails. The escalation department ( XXXX XXXX & her mgr, XXXX XXXX ) has reviewed all the recorded calls and acknowledged the error is the fault of their loan officer XXXX XXXX over 2 weeks ago. They still have not provided us with any firm answers other than they will get back to us, people were on vacation, we need to have a meeting, or the file has to be reviewed. Days later we follow up and get pushed off again. Today more people are on vacation. \n\nChase doesn't shut down when people go on vacation. All docs were provided all conditions and guidelines are satisfied so it does not take 2 weeks to issue a clear to close. We want this loan closed and we want reimbursement without further excuses or delays.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-01T20:18:45.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"60074","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4509093","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2021-07-01T19:20:45.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX told us the condition showed up because we still needed {$17000.00} funds to close after the {$15000.00} earnest <em>money</em> was wired to title. This number doesnt even make sense. $ XXXX purchase price minus $ XXXX loan <em>amount</em> is $ XXXX ; minus $ XXXX earnest <em>money</em> is $ XXXX. \n\nAt nearly XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX tells us that 5 % was definitely required to be provided by XXXX."]},"sort":[5.4524198,"4509093"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18406326","_score":4.868546,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT - STUDENT LOAN SERVICING VIOLATIONS COMPLAINT SUMMARY I am filing this complaint regarding serious student loan servicing violations involving my three private student loans ( two XXXX XXXX loans and one XXXX  XXXX  loan ), which have been serviced by Sallie Mae, Navient, and currently XXXX. Despite borrowing {$70000.00} and paying {$100000.00} over 14 years, I currently owe {$110000.00} due to what I believe are illegal servicing practices including improper forbearance steering, predatory interest practices, failure to properly apply payments, and violations related to my deceased cosigner. Only {$17000.00} ( 16.7 % ) of my payments have been applied to principal, while over 83 % went to interest and fees. \n\nLOAN DETAILS Original Loans : Loan 1 : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Loan 2 : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Loan 3 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Loan 1 - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Original Balance : {$18000.00} Current Balance : {$36000.00} Interest Rate : 13.250 % Total Paid : {$30000.00} Applied to Principal : {$4100.00} ( 13.7 % ) Applied to Interest : {$25000.00} ( 86.3 % ) Loan 2 - XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX : Original Balance : {$32000.00} Current Balance : {$52000.00} Interest Rate : 12.750 % Total Paid : {$47000.00} Applied to Principal : {$10000.00} ( 22.0 % ) Applied to Interest : {$36000.00} ( 78.0 % ) Loan 3 - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( with deceased cosigner ) : Original Balance : {$19000.00} Current Balance : {$30000.00} Interest Rate : 14.250 % Total Paid : {$28000.00} Applied to Principal : {$3100.00} ( 11.1 % ) Applied to Interest and Fees : {$24000.00} ( 88.9 % ) TOTALS : Total Original Amount Borrowed : {$70000.00} Total Current Balance Owed : {$110000.00} ( 168 % of original ) Total Amount Paid Since XXXX : {$100000.00} ( 149 % of original ) Total Applied to Principal : {$17000.00} ( 16.7 % of payments ) Total Applied to Interest/Fees : {$87000.00} ( 83.3 % of payments ) Original Loan Dates : XXXX Current Servicer : XXXX ( since XXXX ) Previous Servicers : Sallie Mae : XXXX XXXX XXXX Navient : XXXX - XXXX XXXX : XXXX - Present SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS AND CONCERNS 1. IMPROPER FORBEARANCE AND DEFERMENT STEERING Grace Period Ended : XX/XX/XXXX Extended Forbearance/Deferment Period with Capitalized Interest : XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ( over 5 years ) During this period, I experienced financial difficulty making my payment amounts. Instead of being counseled about beneficial alternatives, I was repeatedly placed into forbearance and deferment programs. My payment history shows : Major capitalized interest balances added during this entire period Late fees assessed throughout this period ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ) My last deferment payment was {$540.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, showing the dramatically reduced payment amounts during this period The Problem : At no time during these periods was I adequately counseled about alternatives to forbearance that would have been more financially beneficial to me. As private loans, these did not have access to federal income-driven repayment plans, but I should have been offered information about : Extended repayment plans that could have kept me current without massive capitalization Graduated repayment options Interest-only payment periods Other alternatives to full forbearance that would have prevented the devastating interest capitalization I experienced Instead, I was steered into forbearance options that caused interest to capitalize repeatedly and my balance to balloon from {$70000.00} to over {$110000.00}. With interest rates ranging from 12.750 % to 14.250 %, allowing over 5 years of capitalization was catastrophic to my financial future. I believe this practice was designed to benefit the servicer at my expense, as interest continued to accrue and compound during these periods, generating maximum revenue for the servicer while devastating my financial situation. \nI believe my situation is directly related to the predatory forbearance steering practices that resulted in Navient 's {$1.00} XXXX settlement with 39 state attorneys general in XXXX, which included violations related to both federal and private student loans. I request review of whether I am eligible for relief under that settlement or other remediation programs. \n2. PREDATORY INTEREST RATES AND EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION My three loans carry interest rates of 12.750 %, 13.250 %, and 14.250 % - rates that are extraordinarily high and border on predatory, particularly when combined with the aggressive capitalization practices employed during the 5+ year forbearance period. \nThe Mathematical Devastation : I borrowed {$70000.00} I have paid {$100000.00} ( 149 % of what I borrowed ) I now owe {$110000.00} ( 168 % of what I borrowed ) This means I have paid back {$34000.00} MORE than I borrowed, yet I now owe {$47000.00} MORE than I originally borrowed Specific Concerns : Interest capitalization during the 5+ year forbearance period ( XXXX ) was allowed to compound repeatedly Late fees were assessed during forbearance periods when I was explicitly told I didn't need to make full payments The combination of high interest rates ( 12.750 % -14.250 % ) with aggressive capitalization practices appears designed to trap borrowers in perpetual debt Payment application appears structured to maximize interest collection and minimize principal reduction 3. GROSSLY IMPROPER PAYMENT APPLICATION The payment application across all three loans demonstrates a pattern that I believe violates basic fairness and potentially my loan agreements : Loan XXXX : 86.3 % to interest, only 13.7 % to principal Loan XXXX : 78.0 % to interest, only 22.0 % to principal Loan XXXX : 88.9 % to interest and fees, only 11.1 % to principal OVERALL : 83.3 % of all payments went to interest/fees, only 16.7 % to principal This allocation is extreme and suggests : Payments may not be applied according to the original loan terms Servicers may be using payment application methods that maximize their profit at borrower expense The multiple servicer transfers ( Sallie Mae Navient XXXX ) may have resulted in improper accounting or systematic errors Interest may be compounding more frequently than disclosed in original agreements I have maintained consistent payments for the past 5 years with NO missed payments. My current monthly payment is {$1300.00}, auto-debited from my checking account. Despite this perfect payment record and substantial monthly amounts, my principal barely decreases while interest continues to accumulate.\n\nPayment History Details : Payments have ranged from {$540.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX, end of last deferment ) to {$1400.00} Current payment : $ XXXXmonth via auto-debit Five consecutive years of on-time payments ( XXXX ) Total of 14+ years of payments since XXXX 4. COSIGNER DEATH AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES XXXX XXXX  Option Student Loan ( account ending in XXXX ) had a cosigner, XXXX XXXX, who passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. \nCritical Timeline and Facts : XXXX School Year : Sallie Mae DENIED XXXX XXXX as a cosigner for additional loans due to his illness. This proves Sallie Mae had knowledge of his deteriorating health and created an official record of his medical condition. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX passed away. \nPost-Death : I notified Sallie Mae of my cosigner 's death. I was NEVER informed of any cosigner release options, policies, or alternatives. I was never provided any documentation about how his death might affect my loan obligations or whether any relief options existed. \nOngoing Payments While Cosigner Was Ill and After Death : I made monthly payments on this loan even while I was still in school, as required by the loan terms, to reduce interest accrual. I continued making payments throughout my cosigner 's illness and after his death, never receiving any guidance about my rights or options. \nViolations I Believe Occurred : Failure to Disclose Cosigner Release Policies : Many private student loan lenders, including Sallie Mae, have had cosigner release policies that allow release upon death. I was never informed whether such a policy existed or how to apply for it. \nFailure to Provide Required Death-Related Disclosures : Upon being notified of a cosigner 's death, servicers have obligations under various consumer protection laws to disclose how this affects the loan and what options may be available.\n\nKnowledge of Illness Without Proper Disclosure : Sallie Mae 's XXXX denial of my cosigner due to illness proves they knew he was medically compromised. They had a duty to inform me of any policies related to cosigner release, particularly given their knowledge that he might not survive the loan term. \nContinued Aggressive Collection Despite Cosigner Death : After my cosigner 's death, the servicers ( Navient and then XXXX ) continued aggressive collection practices, including the 5+ years of forbearance with massive interest capitalization, without ever addressing the cosigner death or offering any related relief. \n\nI request full investigation into : Whether Sallie Mae, Navient, or XXXX had cosigner release upon death policies that were not disclosed to me Whether their knowledge of my cosigner 's illness in XXXX obligated them to provide specific disclosures Whether I was denied rights or relief I was entitled to under the loan agreement or consumer protection laws Whether the continued aggressive interest capitalization after cosigner death constitutes exploitation 5. MULTIPLE SERVICER TRANSFERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS My loans have been transferred twice, creating numerous opportunities for errors and loss of accountability : XXXX : Original loans with Sallie Mae XXXX XXXX Transfer from Sallie Mae to Navient XXXX : Transfer from Navient to XXXX Each transfer creates opportunities for : Payment tracking errors and misapplication Loss of documentation regarding cosigner death and related rights Improper accounting of principal vs. interest Failure to honor previous agreements, disclosures, or forbearance counseling obligations Gaps  in accountability for predatory practices Specific Concerns : Was information about my cosigner 's death properly transferred to each new servicer? \nWere payment histories accurately maintained across transfers? \nDid each servicer properly account for all capitalized interest events? \nWere late fees during the XXXX forbearance period legitimate, or were they errors created during servicer transitions? \n\nI request a complete audit of my payment and account history across all three servicers to identify any errors, omissions, or violations that occurred during or after these transfers. \n\nDEVASTATING PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL IMPACT This situation has destroyed my financial life and future : Housing : I can not qualify for a home loan. This debt-to-income ratio makes it impossible for me to purchase a home, forcing me to continue renting and losing the wealth-building opportunity of homeownership. \nMy Children 's Future : I am unable to save for my children 's education. Having experienced this nightmare myself, I desperately want to help them avoid student loan debt, but these payments prevent me from saving anything meaningful for their futures.\n\nRetirement Security : I can not save adequately for retirement. I had planned to max out my Roth IRA contributions each year, but these loan payments have made that impossible. I am now years behind on my retirement savings goals and face the prospect of working far longer than I planned or retiring in poverty.\n\nPersonal Relationships : This debt has damaged my ability to have meaningful personal relationships. I am terrified when someone suggests doing something that costs money. The constant financial XXXX  and inability to participate in normal activities has isolated me socially and created XXXX  around basic social interactions. \nPhysical and Mental Health : I work 6 days a week most weeks just to make these payments and save a small emergency fund in case my car breaks down or an appliance fails. This grueling schedule leaves no time for rest, self-care, or enjoying life. The XXXX  is constant and overwhelming. \nThe Cruel Mathematics : After 14+ years of payments, during which I have : Made every payment for 5 consecutive years without a single missed payment Paid {$100000.00} ( nearly {$35000.00} MORE than I borrowed ) Worked 6-day weeks to afford these payments Sacrificed homeownership, retirement savings, my children 's education funds, and my personal wellbeing I now owe {$110000.00} - nearly {$48000.00} MORE than I originally borrowed.\n\nI have done everything asked of me. I have paid faithfully. I have worked myself to exhaustion. And I am drowning deeper every year.\n\nThis is not merely a financial problem- it is a complete destruction of my ability to build a stable, secure life for myself and my family. The practices of these servicers have not just cost me money ; they have stolen my future.\n\nDOCUMENTATION I have the following documentation to support my complaint and am prepared to provide it upon request : Complete payment history for all three loans showing dates, amounts, and principal vs. interest application Payment records showing consistent payments and payment amounts ranging from {$540.00} to {$1400.00} Records showing forbearance/deferment period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX Records showing capitalized interest events and late fees during this period Documentation showing grace period ended XX/XX/XXXX Records of auto-debit payments from checking account Current account statements showing balances of {$36000.00}, {$52000.00}, and {$30000.00} Documentation of cosigner XXXXXXXX XXXX 's death XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Records indicating Sallie Mae denied XXXX XXXX as cosigner in XXXX due to illness Documentation showing I notified Sallie Mae of cosigner 's death Records of servicer transfers : Sallie Mae ( XXXX XXXX XXXX Navient ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ) REQUESTED ACTIONS I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : Conduct a comprehensive investigation into my loan servicing history across all three servicers ( Sallie Mae, Navient, XXXX ) for the period XXXX Audit payment application practices to determine if payments were properly applied according to my original loan agreements and whether the 83.3 % interest allocation is legal and proper Review forbearance steering practices from XXXX to determine if I was illegally steered into 5+ years of forbearance instead of being offered alternative repayment options available under my private loan agreements that would have prevented catastrophic interest capitalization Investigate predatory interest practices including whether interest rates of 12.750 % -14.250 % combined with aggressive capitalization constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) Investigate cosigner death handling across all three servicers to determine if they violated policies or consumer protection laws by : Failing to disclose cosigner release options upon death Failing to provide required death-related disclosures and documentation Exploiting the cosigner 's death by continuing aggressive collection without offering entitled relief Having knowledge of cosigner 's illness ( XXXX denial ) without providing proper disclosures Review late fees assessed during forbearance ( XXXX ) to determine if these fees were legitimate or constitute improper charges during a period when I was explicitly told I didn't need to make full payments Determine eligibility for Navient settlement relief ( which covered private loan servicing abuses ) or other remediation programs related to the practices described in this complaint Order correction of loan balances if servicer errors, improper capitalization, payment misapplication, or illegal practices are found Order refund of overpayments and improperly assessed fees - I have paid {$100000.00} on {$70000.00} borrowed and now owe {$110000.00}. If violations are found, I request refund of excess interest and fees collected through illegal practices. \nProvide complete, accurate accounting of how every payment was applied to principal, interest, fees, and capitalized interest for each loan, with explanation of each capitalization event Investigate the following potential violations : Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) violations Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) violations State consumer protection law violations Breach of contract ( loan agreements ) Breach of fiduciary duties to borrowers Violations of cosigner release and death notification requirements Improper forbearance steering practices Predatory lending and servicing practices Impose penalties and corrective actions on servicers found to have engaged in the practices described in this complaint to prevent other borrowers from experiencing the same devastation ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Current Financial Status : I am current on all payments, having made every monthly payment on time for 5 consecutive years ( XXXX ). My current monthly payment is {$1300.00}, auto-debited from my checking account. I have never missed a payment during this period despite the extreme financial hardship these payments create. \nAlternative Repayment Options : As private loans, these Signature Student and Smart Option loans were not eligible for federal income-driven repayment plans. However, I was never offered or counseled about alternative repayment arrangements that could have prevented the massive interest capitalization I experienced during the 5+ year forbearance period from XXXX. Had I been properly counseled about options like extended repayment, graduated repayment, or interest-only payments during financial hardship, I would not now owe {$110000.00} on loans I borrowed {$70000.00} for, despite having already paid {$100000.00}. \nGood Faith Efforts : I have demonstrated extraordinary good faith throughout this process : Paid on the XXXX XXXX XXXX even while still in school to reduce interest Notified Sallie Mae promptly when my cosigner passed away Continued making payments consistently despite devastating financial impact Made every payment on time for 5 consecutive years Currently work 6 days per week to afford these payments Have paid 149 % of what I borrowed while asking for nothing but fair treatment Pattern of Predatory Conduct : I believe my experience represents a clear pattern of predatory servicing practices that have been documented in lawsuits and settlements against Navient and other servicers. The combination of : Forbearance steering ( 5+ years ) Excessive interest rates ( 12.750 % -14.250 % ) Aggressive capitalization practices Failure to properly counsel on alternatives Exploitation of cosigner 's death Payment application that maximizes servicer profit ... demonstrates a systematic approach to extracting maximum revenue from borrowers while trapping them in perpetual debt, regardless of their good faith payment efforts.\n\nThis Must Stop : If servicers can take a borrower who pays {$100000.00} on a {$70000.00} debt and still leave them owing {$110000.00} - if they can take someone who works 6 days a week, makes every payment on time for 5 years straight, and has sacrificed their home, retirement, and children 's futures- and still have them drowning in ever-increasing debt - then the system is fundamentally broken and predatory.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-01T19:11:48.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"438XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18406326","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2026-01-01T18:58:49.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Don't agree with the fees charged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The practices of these servicers have not just cost me <em>money</em> ; they have stolen my future."]},"sort":[4.868546,"18406326"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6944199","_score":4.8071475,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX\n\nXX/XX/XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX.\nFormerly known as Patrick A. Carey, P.A.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX\n\nYour Reference File # XXXX\n\nDear Debt Collector:\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by USPS mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by USPS every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by USPS mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The USPS, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my USPS mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the USPS tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and USPS errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XX/XX/XXXX CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page XXXX XXXX Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire credit reports of XXXX XXXX  dated XX/XX/ and XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXXand the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the XXXX XXXX compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under MXXXX XXXX  to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX and XXXX credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In XX/XX/XXXX, I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an XXXX XXXX citizen? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even ROBO attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, Rohit Chopra, in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX male and American XXXX XXXX in poor health and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and abuse me. Moreover, last year I have been affected by medical malpractice, COVID-19, a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX points totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the XXXX XXXX code AW into every account?  Do you even know what AW means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXX XXXX XXXX relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator $50,000 to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my USDC DISCOVERY requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently FLAG in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of XXXX shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  XXXX XXXX is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes TRUMP any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including XXXX XXXX, which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by XXXX and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code XXXX XXXX except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully.  If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent?   More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under XXXX XXXX.  Why is data reported on XXXX XXXX but concealed from my paper credit reports?  Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by XXXX XXXX  and contained in my credit file?  How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers?  How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the XXXX XXXX  system.  Again, I need every document, including every XXXX XXXX  submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via XXXX XXXX. Moreover, many of the XXXX XXXX data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data.  Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or XXXX XXXX  protocols and obligations.  I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under XXXX XXXX.  Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day.  Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth XXXX in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding XXXX?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have ZERO liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory  XXXX XXXX  protocols have been compliant or violated.  \n\n If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\n Tell me when the creditor claims this debt became due and when it became delinquent.\n\n Identify the date of the last payment and amount made on this account.\n\n Have you made a determination that this debt is within the statute of limitations applicable to it? Tell me when you think the statute of limitations expires for this debt, and how you determined that.\n\nDetails about your authority to collect this debt.\n\n I would like more information about your firm before I discuss (in writing, of course) the debt with you. Does your firm have a debt collection license from my state? If not, say why not. If so, provide the date of the license, the name and previous names on the license, the license number, the valid status of the license and the name, address and telephone number of the state agency issuing the license.  Also provide me with any name currently and previously included as a debt collector for making CFPB complaints on its website.  \n\n If you are contacting me from a place outside my state, does your firm have a debt collection license from that place? If so, provide the date of the license, the name on the license, the license number, and the name, address and telephone number of the state agency issuing the license.\n\nI have asked for this information because I have some questions. I need to hear from you in writing with all documentation requested herein to make an informed decision about your claim that I owe this money. I expect a one time written communication for this purpose but only in writing provided you fully address each and every item of requested data I seek.  In order to make sure that I am not put at any disadvantage, in the meantime please treat this purported debt as being in dispute in its entirety. Nothing contained in my letter should be construed in any way as an admission of any responsibility whatsoever for the purported claim.  Failure to respond in writing controverting my allegations and points shall be deemed your admission by your non response  and all conflicts shall be resolved in my favor. \n\nIn addition to providing the information requested above, please let me know whether you are prepared to pay me for statutory and punitive damages in an amount not less than the balance you are claiming is owed. If so, please tell me in writing your offer with the amount you will pay me to fully resolve the account with an exchange of mutual general releases which, of course, would require permanent deletion from every CRA file of any reported data, if any.\n\nIn addition to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act prohibits harassment, false or misleading statements and unfair practices by collection agencies and debt collectors. Some violations of these acts are listed below:\n1. They threaten to tell your employer or neighbors about the debt;\n2. Threaten violence against you;\n3. Threaten to have you arrested;\n4. Communicate with you or your spouse more than three times a week;\n5. Harass, intimidate, threaten or embarrass you;\n6. Imply that documents sent to you are legal documents or government\ndocuments;\n7. Imply that you can be deported; or\n8. Solicit a postdated check in order to threaten criminal prosecution.\n\nThe CFPB and advocates recommend consumers to also check to see if their state licenses debt collectors and if the company that is contacting them is licensed. If a state does not license debt collectors, check the registry for a neighboring state. Some states also provide licensing information to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System at XXXX. That website will thus provide a few more states where the debt collector might be licensed.  I purposely repeat myself to make it clear that I need to know complete details of what licenses you are required to have and what licenses you have.  \n\nThe CFPB and others recommend the Stop Contact or Cease Letter strategy to stop collection harassment by writing the collector a stop contact letter, also called a cease letter. Then the collector can only acknowledge the letter and notify the consumer about legal steps the collector may take. This protection usually only applies to collection agencies hired by the creditor or debt buyers that purchased debts from the creditor, but even creditors collecting their own debts must honor such requests as basic agency law requires creditors to be respons","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-05T12:40:18.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6944199","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PATRICK A. CAREY, P.A.","date_received":"2023-05-05T12:30:21.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user <em>errors</em> and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are <em>broken</em> for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols."]},"sort":[4.8071475,"6944199"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6926616","_score":4.7983274,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Florida. XXXXXX/XX/2023\nRAS LaVrar, LLC\nXX/XX/FL XXXX  \nYour Reference XXXX XXXX  \nDear Debt Collector:\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by XXXX  mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by XXXX  every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by XXXX  mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The XXXX, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my XXXX  mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the XXXX  tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and XXXX  errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XXXX XXXX CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page Metro 2 Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire credit reports of XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/2023 and XXXX datedXX/XX/2023 and the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the Metro 2 compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under Metro 2 to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX and XXXX credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In XXXX XXXX I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an elderly senior citizen? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even XXXX  attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, Rohit Chopra, in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX  years old XXXX XXXXXXXX and American with XXXX in poor health and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and abuse me. Moreover, last year I have been affected by medical malpractice, COVID-19, a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX XXXX totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the Metro 2 code XXXX into every account?  Do you even know what XXXX means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXX XXXX bankruptcy relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator XXXXXXXX to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my XXXX  XXXX requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently FLAG in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of XXXXXXXX shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  Metro 2 is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes TRUMP any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including Metro 2, which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by COVID-19 and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code Metro 2 except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully. If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent? More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under Metro 2. Why is data reported on Metro 2 but concealed from my paper credit reports? Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by Metro 2 and contained in my credit file? How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers? How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the Metro 2 system. Again, I need every document, including every Metro 2 submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via Metro 2. Moreover, many of the Metro 2 data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data. Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or Metro 2 protocols and obligations. I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under Metro 2. Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day. Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth $100,000+ in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding $10,000,000+?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have ZERO liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory Metro 2 protocols have been compliant or violated. If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\n Tell me when the creditor claims this debt became due and when it became delinquent.\n\n Identify the date of the last payment and amount made on this account.\n\n Have you made a determination that this debt is within the statute of limitations applicable to it? Tell me when you think the statute of limitations expires for this debt, and how you determined that.\n\nDetails about your authority to collect this debt.\n\n I would like more information about your firm before I discuss (in writing, of course) the debt with you. Does your firm have a debt collection license from my state? If not, say why not. If so, provide the date of the license, the name and previous names on the license, the license number, the valid status of the license and the name, address and telephone number of the state agency issuing the license.  Also provide me with any name currently and previously included as a debt collector for making CFPB complaints on its website.  \n\n If you are contacting me from a place outside my state, does your firm have a debt collection license from that place? If so, provide the date of the license, the name on the license, the license number, and the name, address and telephone number of the state agency issuing the license.\n\nI have asked for this information because I have some questions. I need to hear from you in writing with all documentation requested herein to make an informed decision about your claim that I owe this money. I expect a one time written communication for this purpose but only in writing provided you fully address each and every item of requested data I seek.  In order to make sure that I am not put at any disadvantage, in the meantime please treat this purported debt as being in dispute in its entirety. Nothing contained in my letter should be construed in any way as an admission of any responsibility whatsoever for the purported claim.  Failure to respond in writing controverting my allegations and points shall be deemed your admission by your non response  and all conflicts shall be resolved in my favor. \n\nIn addition to providing the information requested above, please let me know whether you are prepared to pay me for statutory and punitive damages in an amount not less than the balance you are claiming is owed. If so, please tell me in writing your offer with the amount you will pay me to fully resolve the account with an exchange of mutual general releases which, of course, would require permanent deletion from every CRA file of any reported data, if any.\n\nIn addition to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act prohibits harassment, false or misleading statements and unfair practices by collection agencies and debt collectors. Some violations of these acts are listed below:\n1. They threaten to tell your employer or neighbors about the debt;\n2. Threaten violence against you;\n3. Threaten to have you arrested;\n4. Communicate with you or your spouse more than three times a week;\n5. Harass, intimidate, threaten or embarrass you;\n6. Imply that documents sent to you are legal documents or government\ndocuments;\n7. Imply that you can be deported; or\n8. Solicit a postdated check in order to threaten criminal prosecution.\n\nThe CFPB and advocates recommend consumers to also check to see if their state licenses debt collectors and if the company that is contacting them is licensed. If a state does not license debt collectors, check the registry for a neighboring state. Some states also provide licensing information to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX. That website will thus provide a few more states where the debt collector might be licensed.  I purposely repeat myself to make it clear that I need to know complete details of what licenses you are required to have and what licenses you have.  \n\nThe CFPB and others recommend the Stop Contact or Cease Letter strategy to stop collection harassment by writing the collector a stop contact letter, also called a cease letter. Then the collector can only acknowledge the letter and notify the consumer about legal steps the collector may take. This protection usually only applies to collection agencies hired by the creditor or debt buyers that purchased debts from the creditor, but even creditors collecting their own debts must honor such requests as basic agency law requires creditors to be responsible for actions of the bill collector agents","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-03T20:45:56.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6926616","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"RAS LaVrar, LLC","date_received":"2023-05-03T20:33:40.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user <em>errors</em> and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are <em>broken</em> for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols."]},"sort":[4.7983274,"6926616"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858508","_score":2.4281673,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858508","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:57:33.000Z","state":"MN","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 continued reporting of these discharged debts <em>indicates</em> a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were <em>broken</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[2.4281673,"12858508"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858504","_score":2.4281673,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858504","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:57:33.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The continued reporting of these discharged debts <em>indicates</em> a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were <em>broken</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[2.4281673,"12858504"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858035","_score":2.4195905,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858035","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:45:23.000Z","state":"MN","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 continued reporting of these discharged debts <em>indicates</em> a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were <em>broken</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[2.4195905,"12858035"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":23,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":23}]}},"product":{"doc_count":23,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":23,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":2},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with balance transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"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":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't close your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Don't agree with the fees charged","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","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":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":23,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":22},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":23,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":16},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":23,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":23}]}},"company":{"doc_count":23,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PATRICK A. CAREY, P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"RAS LaVrar, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":23,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":4},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"MN","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":23,"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":13},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":23,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}