{"took":119,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":24,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8174636","_score":18.741943,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Protections Agency Consumer protection agency, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter that has caused me significant distress and financial hardship. As a XXXX XXXX customer of Chime, I have encountered a series of deeply troubling challenges in seeking resolution for disputes that have had a severe impact on my financial stability and personal well-being. My name is XXXX XXXX, and I am compelled to bring to your attention the series of events that have led me to believe that Chime has failed to uphold fair and just treatment, thereby discriminating against me. \n\nThe handling of my claims by Chime has been marked by a persistent lack of due consideration and professionalism, resulting in substantial financial losses and personal distress. Despite providing comprehensive evidence to support my claims, each of my submissions has been met with repeated denials, creating an atmosphere of doubt regarding the thoroughness and fairness with which my concerns have been addressed. The cumulative amount in dispute is in the thousands of dollars, and the continued disregard of substantial evidence provided has been particularly distressing. \n\nI have made repeated attempts to engage Chime in the proper investigation of my disputes. However, each interaction with their support and supervisor teams has been marked by failed promises and unfulfilled assurances. I have diligently followed all the prescribed procedures, including submitting a meticulously prepared Regulation E form supported by a signed affidavit attesting to the errors in the claims. Yet, my claims have continued to be summarily dismissed. Moreover, actual transaction receipts documenting ATM errors were inexplicably disregarded despite being submitted as irrefutable evidence. \n\nThe consequences of these issues have been nothing short of severe, resulting in significant personal and business-related upheaval, including the unfortunate dissolution of my marriage and the loss of my home. Engaging with banking and investigation agents has only served to reinforce the validity of my disputes, with clear indications that the claims in question should be rightfully reimbursed. \n\nI am deeply troubled by what I perceive as discrimination against me as a XXXX XXXX customer and the apparent failure of Chime to conduct a proper and impartial investigation into my disputes. In light of this, I urgently seek your agency 's assistance in addressing this matter and ensuring that Chime upholds the fundamental principles of fairness and equity in its treatment of all customers. \n\nI trust in the earnest commitment of your agency to give the serious attention this matter truly merits, and I eagerly anticipate your swift and decisive intervention in this regard. \n\nYours sincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-19T07:11:55.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"92562","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8174636","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2024-01-19T07:03:52.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite providing comprehensive evidence to <em>support</em> my claims, each of my submissions has been met with repeated denials, creating an atmosphere of doubt regarding the thoroughness and fairness with which my concerns have been addressed. The cumulative amount in dispute is in the thousands of dollars, and the continued disregard of substantial evidence provided has been particularly distressing. \n\nI have made repeated attempts to <em>engage</em> Chime in the <em>proper</em> investigation of my disputes."]},"sort":[18.741943,"8174636"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8327602","_score":10.08029,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Experian Information Solutions Inc . \n\nUnlawful Violations intentionally and recklessly committed by Credit Reporting Company/Agency The Credit reporting reporting agency unlawfully declined to block adverse items resulting from trafficking based on their assessment of the validity of my trafficking documentation which is prohibited pursuant to 1022.142 ( e ) ( 4 ). The consumer reporting agency does not have the discretion or the authority to challenge a consumer 's trafficking determination status pertaining to adverse items resulting from a severe form of XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nFCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) requires the furnisher to examine sufficient evidence to determine whether the disputed information is accurate. -Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. The Adverse information resulting from trafficking was submitted to the ( Experian ) and denied the block despite a determination already been made by XXXX that information resulted from XXXX XXXX XXXX and was blocked from my consumer report. \n\n12 CFR Part 1022 - Fair Credit Reporting ( Regulation V ), Section 1022.142 -Prohibits the inclusion of adverse information in consumer reporting involving cases of XXXX XXXX. The Credit Reporting Agency violated this rule by including adverse information in my consumer report related to trafficking. \n\n1022.142 ( e ) ( 1 ) Block of adverse information resulting from trafficking and 1022.142 ( c ) -The credit reporting agency failed to block adverse information identified by the consumer that related to trafficking within the ( 4 ) day time requirement,. Submission Receipt Date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( e ) ( 2 ) Delayed Notification and Deficiency Resolution : -The credit reporting agency did not properly notify the consumer or attempt to resolve deficiencies within the specified time frame of 5 business days and didnt provide content required under 1022.142 ( f ) ( 2 ). The agency first response wasnt until XX/XX/XXXX, ( XXXX ) days after receipt of submission date on XX/XX/XXXX and the letter did not show an attempt to resolve any deficiencies but instead stated my block was denied. \n\n1022.142 ( e ) ( 3 ) Violation of Timing Requirements : -The credit reporting agency failed to meet the time requirements for ( 1 ) blocking information within 4 days, ( 2 ) notifying the consumer with 5 days, and ( 3 ) making the final determination with 25 days from receipt of submission. The receipt of submission date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), the CRA first notification to consumer ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and final determination date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), ( 57 ) days after receipt of submission. \n\nIllegal Disclosure of Trafficking Information : -The credit reporting agency unlawfully disclosed trafficking information to credit furnishers, causing further harm and damages to the my consumer 's credit reporting statement 1022.142 ( e ) ( 4 ) Improper Rescission of Block : -The credit reporting agency unlawfully declined to block adverse information based on the validity of the facts and circumstances of the consumer trafficking documentation. The consumer provided documentation including a ( victim determination ) under paragraph 1022.142 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( i ). The appropriate proof of identity was confirmed under paragraph 1022.142 ( b ) ( 1 ). Consumer Reporting Agencies didnt provide proper notification using the method of contact specified by the consumer in ( b ) ( 6 ) ( ii ) ( B ) of 1022.142. And they continue to send mail documents to wrong address when my mailing address is stated in my documents. \n\n\" Pursuant to 12 U.S. Code 5536, it is unlawful for any covered person or service provider to commit any act or omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law or to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. '' ( 12 U.S. Code 5531 ) Inability of Consumers to Protect their Interests : -As a Consumer Im unable to protect my interests when using financial products or services hosted by the Credit Reporting Company due to limited provider choices and reliance on covered persons ( 18 U.S. Code 241 ) Conspiracy against Rights : -Credit reporting company and furnishers conspired to infringe upon my individual constitutional rights and privileges.\n\n( 15 U.S. Code 1681x, 1681I, and 12 CFR 1022.142 ) Violation of Debt Bondage Repair Act : -The credit reporting company violated the Debt Bondage Repair Act and National Defense Authorization Act by including negative information in the credit report of XXXX  survivor. \n\n( 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( a ), 1681 ( b ) ) Inaccurate and Unfair Credit Reporting : -The credit reporting agency violations of credit reporting requirements resulted in inaccurate and unfair reporting of the consumer 's credit information. \n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c3-Adverse information in cases of trafficking. \n-Consumer reporting agency included adverse information in my consumer report despite the case of XXXX XXXX \n\nViolation of 22 U.S. Code 78 ( Trafficking Victims Protection Act ) : -CRA violated aspects of trafficking outlined In Violation of 22 U.S. Code 78, including my privacy and protection as a trafficking victims. \n\nUnfortunately, as a victim its challenging obtaining the protection, fair treatment and benefits Im entitled to, because of CRA decision to deny my self attestation and determination certification letters. This has resulted in a lack of necessary support for my safety, protection, and overall well-being. \n\nJustice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 ( Sec. 102 ) Trafficking Victims Protection Act allows US citizens and permanent residents who are victims of severe forms of trafficking to access benefits and services without official certification from the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ). \n\nTraffking Protection Act of 2000 ( 22 U.S.C. 7102 ) Credit Reporting Agency violated the act which allows trafficking victims to access benefits and services without official certification, amending the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. \n\nSummary : The credit reporting agency violated multiple laws and regulations, resulting in various damages and hardships for the consumer. These violations include : Unlawfully declining to block adverse information related to trafficking, within the required timeframe despite the consumer providing valid documentation. \nFailure to protect personal information and engage in proper investigation and resolution of fraudulent accounts, leading to financial losses and extensive efforts to resolve the issue. \nMishandling valid disputes, prolonging the presence of erroneous information, causing ongoing harm. \nViolations of consumer rights, including failure to comply with laws and neglecting investigations, causing harm. \nEmployment and housing denials due to inaccurate and damaging information provided by the credit reporting agency. \n\nDamages and Injuries Homelessness and difficulty finding housing due to inaccurate consumer reports. Declining income and financial hardship, affecting basic needs. Including challenges in accessing healthcare services and mental health support. Lack of stability and employment opportunities. Difficulty obtaining consumer reports when needed. Neglect by credit reporting agencies and data furnishers in resolving trafficking issues. Fear of retaliation and limited credit access, impacting financial freedom. Fear for personal safety and well-being due to income decline and limited credit access. \n\nThe consumer is seeking various forms of compensation and relief, including criminal penalties for the violators, equitable relief, punitive damages, monetary damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, compensation for losses, injury, and restitution, and damages for mental, emotional, and financial distress. The violations have caused damage to the consumer 's reputation and credit profile, hindering their ability to access credit for basic needs and overall well-being. Compensatory damages of {$75000.00}. And {$90000.00} for punitive damages as well doing what is right by blocking the adverse items resulting from severe forms of trafficking off my consumer report.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-12T11:03:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30294","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8327602","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-12T10:55:26.000Z","state":"GA","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":["Failure to protect personal information and <em>engage</em> in <em>proper</em> investigation and resolution of fraudulent accounts, leading to financial losses and extensive efforts to resolve the issue. \nMishandling valid disputes, prolonging the presence of erroneous information, causing ongoing harm. \nViolations of consumer rights, including failure to comply with laws and neglecting investigations, causing harm."]},"sort":[10.08029,"8327602"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8327573","_score":10.068296,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Equifax, INC Unlawful Violations intentionally and recklessly committed by Credit Reporting Company/Agency The Credit reporting reporting agency unlawfully declined to block adverse items resulting from trafficking based on their assessment of the validity of my trafficking documentation which is prohibited pursuant to 1022.142 ( e ) ( 4 ). The consumer reporting agency does not have the discretion or the authority to challenge a consumer 's trafficking determination status pertaining to adverse items resulting from a severe form of trafficking in persons.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) requires the furnisher to examine sufficient evidence to determine whether the disputed information is accurate. -Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. The Adverse information resulting from trafficking was submitted to the ( Equifax ) and denied the block despite a determination already been made by XXXX that information resulted from trafficking in person and was blocked from my consumer report.\n\n12 CFR Part 1022 - Fair Credit Reporting ( Regulation V ), Section 1022.142 -Prohibits the inclusion of adverse information in consumer reporting involving cases of human trafficking. The Credit Reporting Agency violated this rule by including adverse information in my consumer report related to trafficking.\n\n1022.142 ( e ) ( 1 ) Block of adverse information resulting from trafficking and 1022.142 ( c ) -The credit reporting agency failed to block adverse information identified by the consumer that related to trafficking within the ( 4 ) day time requirement,. Submission Receipt Date : 12/12/2023 1022.142 ( e ) ( 2 ) Delayed Notification and Deficiency Resolution : -The credit reporting agency did not properly notify the consumer or attempt to resolve deficiencies within the specified time frame of 5 business days and didnt provide content required under 1022.142 ( f ) ( 2 ). The agency first response wasnt until 01/16/2024, ( 35 ) days after receipt of submission date on 12/12/2023.\n\n1022.142 ( e ) ( 3 ) Violation of Timing Requirements : -The credit reporting agency failed to meet the time requirements for ( 1 ) blocking information within 4 days, ( 2 ) notifying the consumer with 5 days, and ( 3 ) making the final determination with 25 days from receipt of submission. The receipt of submission date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), the CRA first notification to consumer ( XX/XX/XXXX ) 35 days after receipt of submission, and final determination date is still undetermined, ( 62 ) days after receipt of submission.\n\nIllegal Disclosure of Trafficking Information : -The credit reporting agency unlawfully disclosed trafficking information to credit furnishers, causing further harm and damages to the my consumer 's credit reporting statement 1022.142 ( e ) ( 4 ) Improper Rescission of Block : -The credit reporting agency unlawfully declined to block adverse information based on the validity of the facts and circumstances of the consumer trafficking documentation. The consumer provided documentation including a ( victim determination ) under paragraph 1022.142 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( i ). The appropriate proof of identity was confirmed under paragraph 1022.142 ( b ) ( 1 ). Consumer Reporting Agencies didnt provide proper notification using the method of contact specified by the consumer in ( b ) ( 6 ) ( ii ) ( B ) of 1022.142. And they continue to send mail documents to wrong address when my mailing address is stated in my documents.\n\n\" Pursuant to 12 U.S. Code 5536, it is unlawful for any covered person or service provider to commit any act or omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law or to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. '' ( 12 U.S. Code 5531 ) Inability of Consumers to Protect their Interests : -As a Consumer Im unable to protect my interests when using financial products or services hosted by the Credit Reporting Company due to limited provider choices and reliance on covered persons ( 18 U.S. Code 241 ) Conspiracy against Rights : -Credit reporting company and furnishers conspired to infringe upon my individual constitutional rights and privileges.\n\n( 15 U.S. Code 1681x, 1681I, and 12 CFR 1022.142 ) Violation of Debt Bondage Repair Act : -The credit reporting company violated the Debt Bondage Repair Act and National Defense Authorization Act by including negative information in the credit report of trafficking survivor. \n\n( 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( a ), 1681 ( b ) ) Inaccurate and Unfair Credit Reporting : -The credit reporting agency violations of credit reporting requirements resulted in inaccurate and unfair reporting of the consumer 's credit information.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c3-Adverse information in cases of trafficking.\n\n-Consumer reporting agency included adverse information in my consumer report despite the case of human trafficking.\n\nViolation of 22 U.S. Code 78 ( Trafficking Victims Protection Act ) : -CRA violated aspects of trafficking outlined In Violation of 22 U.S. Code 78, including my privacy and protection as a trafficking victims.\n\nUnfortunately, as a victim its challenging obtaining the protection, fair treatment and benefits Im entitled to, because of CRA decision to deny my self attestation and determination certification letters. This has resulted in a lack of necessary support for my safety, protection, and overall well-being.\n\nJustice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 ( Sec. 102 ) Trafficking Victims Protection Act allows US citizens and permanent residents who are victims of severe forms of trafficking to access benefits and services without official certification from the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ).\n\nTraffking Protection Act of 2000 ( 22 U.S.C. 7102 ) Credit Reporting Agency violated the act which allows trafficking victims to access benefits and services without official certification, amending the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.\n\nSummary : The credit reporting agency violated multiple laws and regulations, resulting in various damages and hardships for the consumer. These violations include : Unlawfully declining to block adverse information related to trafficking, within the required timeframe despite the consumer providing valid documentation. \nFailure to protect personal information and engage in proper investigation and resolution of fraudulent accounts, leading to financial losses and extensive efforts to resolve the issue. \nMishandling valid disputes, prolonging the presence of erroneous information, causing ongoing harm. \nViolations of consumer rights, including failure to comply with laws and neglecting investigations, causing harm. \nEmployment and housing denials due to inaccurate and damaging information provided by the credit reporting agency. \n\nDamages and Injuries Homelessness and difficulty finding housing due to inaccurate consumer reports. Declining income and financial hardship, affecting basic needs. Including challenges in accessing healthcare services and mental health support. Lack of stability and employment opportunities. Difficulty obtaining consumer reports when needed. Neglect by credit reporting agencies and data furnishers in resolving trafficking issues. Fear of retaliation and limited credit access, impacting financial freedom. Fear for personal safety and well-being due to income decline and limited credit access. \n\nThe consumer is seeking various forms of compensation and relief, including criminal penalties for the violators, equitable relief, punitive damages, monetary damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, compensation for losses, injury, and restitution, and damages for mental, emotional, and financial distress. The violations have caused damage to the consumer 's reputation and credit profile, hindering their ability to access credit for basic needs and overall well-being. Compensatory damages of {$75000.00}. And {$90000.00} for punitive damages as well doing what is right by blocking the adverse items resulting from severe forms of trafficking off my consumer report.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-12T10:52:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30294","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8327573","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-12T10:42:19.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to protect personal information and <em>engage</em> in <em>proper</em> investigation and resolution of fraudulent accounts, leading to financial losses and extensive efforts to resolve the issue. \nMishandling valid disputes, prolonging the presence of erroneous information, causing ongoing harm. \nViolations of consumer rights, including failure to comply with laws and neglecting investigations, causing harm."]},"sort":[10.068296,"8327573"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8485080","_score":9.696394,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer, Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This letter outlines a series of events that demonstrate the servicers failure to adhere to guidelines set forth in the CARES Act and changes to FHA policies, guidelines, and requirements. These failures have resulted in significant financial distress for me and put my property at imminent risk of foreclosure. I am seeking a thorough investigation into these matters and an appropriate resolution to prevent further harm and ensure compliance with federal regulations designed to protect consumers XX/XX/XXXX : Following a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster, a3-month forbearance period was announced for affected homeowners. Despite this announcement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not inform me about the available forbearance relief, contrary to CARES Act requirements for lenders to provide relief options to borrowers during disaster declarations. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to notify them that I was in imminent default and to inquire about further forbearance or loss mitigation options, referencing HUD 's updated FHA guidelines. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denied access to disaster-related forbearance due to alleged non-notification by FHA and unawareness of the Mortgagee Letters updates, resulting in the failure to inform me of the new guidelines which could have offered necessary relief, demonstrating a lack of compliance with federal directives to keep servicing staff informed and trained on current loss mitigation options. This action directly contradicts HUD 's guidelines which mandate mortgages to review all borrowers in default or facing imminent default for COVID-19 Recovery Options. Despite the broadened eligibility criteria for COVID-19 forbearance outlined in HUD 's updated guidelines, the lender denied forbearance based on an assertion that we had exhausted our forbearance options in XXXX. This directly contradicts the updated provisions designed to provide relief to borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Despite the Presidentially Declared Major Disaster XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denied knowledge of the disaster-related forbearance due to alleged non-notification by FHA and disregarded directive for lenders to review and provide COVID-19 recovery options to all eligible borrowers, irrespective of previous forbearance history, indicating a systemic failure to adhere to mandated relief programs. Despite my proactive communication with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about being in imminent default and seeking forbearance relief based on HUD 's updated guidelines, the bank proceeded to modify my mortgage to a XXXX term contrary to my stated financial situation. This action disregarded my rights and failed to comply with HUD guidelines that require clear communication and consent for loan modifications. The guidelines require that any loan modification, especially those extending the loan term and altering monthly payments, should be conducted with the borrower 's knowledge and consent, ensuring that relief options are tailored to genuinely assist the borrower 's financial recovery. This situation not only demonstrates a failure to comply with federal guidelines but also a disregard for our financial wellbeing and autonomy in decision-making regarding our mortgage. The unauthorized modification of my loan by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, despite my explicit communication regarding my financial distress and without my consent, exemplifies a significant failure to adhere to the federally mandated guidelines designed to provide relief to homeowners affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX actions highlight a systemic issue of non-compliance particularly concerning the review and application of COVID-19 Recovery Options for borrowers in imminent default which lead to an increase in our payment without proper notification or consent, exacerbating our financial distress. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX, I received loan modification documents to sign and return by XX/XX/XXXX, which formalized the modification despite not being 90 Days delinquent on my mortgage payment ( a usual prerequisite for loan modification ) and requesting that the loan not be modified at this time. The lender 's request for the loan modification documents to be signed and notarized within 10 business days does not align with the guidelines, which afford borrowers 30 days to review such documents and an additional 30 days to start payments on the new modification. The lenders reference to foreclosure upon not receiving the signed documents within their stipulated timeframe disregards the mandated review and creates a high-pressure situation that encourages quick decisions without giving us time to fully understand the implications of what we are signing or knowing all available options to us XX/XX/XXXX : I was sent a letter notifying me that the modification had been removed due to failing to return the required documents and funds. I also received notification that a default had occurred under the terms of the note and if funds were not paid to cure the default that my account would be \" accelerated '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX placed me in an unemployment forbearance program in three-month increments, sidestepping the protections intended by FHA Mortgagee Letter 2023-03 . This guideline clearly states that lenders must review all borrowers in default or facing imminent default for the COVID-19 Recovery Options through XX/XX/XXXX, without disqualifying them based on the duration of their delinquency or their past participation in COVID-19 related forbearance. Contrary to these directives, the lender 's approach to forbearance not only disregarded the updated guideline 's stipulation that forbearance should not be denied based on being more than 12 months behind at the time of approval but also utilized a loophole to manipulate forbearance in strategic increments that were more favorable to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denying the long-term assistance by exploiting procedural nuances at our expense during this unprecedented time. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX actions are particularly concerning given that, despite being in imminent default over several months, the guidelines affirm that borrowers like myself should still be considered for comprehensive relief measures. Specifically, FHA Letter 2023-03 mandates that borrowers 90 or more days delinquent at the time the permanent loss mitigation documents are executed, or those meeting the criteria for imminent default, must be evaluated for COVID-19 Recovery Options. This includes borrowers who have previously utilized HAF funds for mortgage reinstatement but attest to their inability to resume monthly payments. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX practices not only undermine the FHA 's intentions to provide necessary relief to borrowers impacted by National Disasters but also compromise the financial security of everyone who is facing challenging circumstances. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Following the termination of my forbearance period, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requested updated financial information from my spouse, citing a lack of updates since XXXX. The services failed to engage in proactive and ongoing communication with us to reassess our eligibility for loss mitigation options that are required under the CARES Act. This request underscores a critical oversight in the bank 's approach to borrower engagement and loss mitigation efforts. The CARES Act does not stipulate the requirement for borrowers to re-qualify for assistance or to provide updated financial documentation to be considered for loss mitigation options. The Act 's provisions are designed to ensure that borrowers impacted by COVID-19 and or PDMDA have access to relief measures without the precondition of submitting new financial information. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX request not only deviates from this principle but also indicates a broader issue of compliance with the act 's intent to facilitate accessible and efficient relief for borrowers during unprecedented times. This is a significant gap in the bank 's procedures for communicating with borrowers and reassessing their needs for support in alignment with federal regulations designed to protect homeowners during the pandemic and PDMDA 's. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I was informed by a representative from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX team that foreclosure actions were being initiated on my property, despite my active forbearance period. I notified the representative of the proactive steps that I had applied for the Homeowner 's Assistance Fund ( HAF ) to assist me in meeting my past due mortgage obligation, but the representative stated that the bank plans to proceed with foreclosure regardless of my application to the assistance fund. In search of clarification and a resolution, I asked to speak with a supervisor. Unfortunately, the account information provided by the supervisor was inaccurate, stating my account was delinquent with the last payment recorded in XX/XX/XXXX, including two split payments. When I attempted to correct this with the accurate payment dates, it was clear the bank lacked an efficient system for promptly verifying such details. I corrected her, stating my last payment was in XX/XX/XXXX, not XXXX. The supervisor directed me to the customer service department, rather than addressing the inaccurate account information used to justify the foreclosure. To address these discrepancies and avoid further miscommunication, I directly contacted my designated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX. However, instead of receiving a response from XXXX XXXX, I was contacted two weeks later by XXXX XXXX, who introduced herself as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX assistant. Despite my continuous attempts to engage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX representatives and seek a resolution through appropriate channels, the bank chose an unconventional approach and sent a representative to our home who approached my son outside our residence, instructing him to relay a message for us to contact the bank. Sending a representative in such an invasive manner, especially after our multiple attempts to resolve the issue, represents not only an invasion of privacy but also amplifies the stress and anxiety linked to the looming threat of foreclosure by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nWe have made proactive attempts to engage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to resolve inaccuracies in our account and have clearly communicated our intention and efforts to comply with our mortgage obligations. Despite these efforts, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has proceeded with refering our accout to an attorney for foreclosure, showing apparent indifference to the challenges we have faced and the proactive steps we have taken to maintain the home during a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster showing a complete disregard for the federal guidelines and assistance programs that are designed to offer additional protections and support to homeowners facing financial hardships to ensure housing stability XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to mismanagement of the mortgage assistance programs that are intended to aid financially distressed homeowners has compromised our ability to recover from financial setbacks and maintain housing stability by obstructing the recovery process for individuals in dire need by undermining the purpose of these assistance programs to ensure homeowners can retain their properties during a time of crises. \n\nThese measures are meant to offer a safety net for a broad spectrum of borrowers that are recovering from the impact of the pandemic and other economic challenges. The ineffective implementation of these measures by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and the barriers that they have created for us when we sought assistance have directly undermines the purpose of HUD 's programs and has herded us like cattle into an outcomes that will ultimately favor Lakeview Loan Services and the servicer of our loan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I request that the CFPB thoroughly investigate these violations by Lakeview Loan Services and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe that our experiences highlights systemic issues within XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX management of mortgage assistance programs during an unprecedented global pandemic and national disasters, necessitating immediate and decisive action to protect not only my rights but those of other affected borrowers","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-06T19:14:31.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"91915","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8485080","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC","date_received":"2024-03-06T18:44:33.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite my continuous attempts to <em>engage</em> with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX representatives and <em>seek</em> a resolution through appropriate channels, the bank chose an unconventional approach and sent a representative to our home who approached my son outside our residence, instructing him to relay a message for us to contact the bank."]},"sort":[9.696394,"8485080"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13207475","_score":9.33316,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"NOTICE OF FINAL DEMAND FOR COMPLIANCE AND SETTLEMENT Private Settlement Offer Not for Public Disclosure Date : XX/XX/XXXX TO : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX FROM : XXXX XXXX XXXX Private American National Authorized Representative Without Recourse XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX RE : Final Demand for Immediate Removal of Fraudulent Tradeline, Correction of Personal Information, Full Production of Investigation Documentation, and Settlement for Damages Dear Experian Legal Compliance Division, This correspondence serves as a FINAL DEMAND under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and under the full color and force of applicable federal law, to compel your immediate compliance and full corrective action regarding willful breaches, negligent violations, and fraudulent practices affecting my consumer file.\n\nStatement of Facts : 1. You have willfully and knowingly continued to report fraudulent and unauthorized personal information including but not limited to : Multiple inaccurate names not legally associated with me, specifically XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX instead of my correct legal name XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThe unauthorized addition of no fewer than 19 separate addresses not lawfully linked to my identity, with the latest infringement being XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, alongside previous improper entries such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, both linked to disputed and fraudulent XXXX XXXX tradelines. \n2. You have failed to comply with my lawful demands, including disputes and formal complaints lodged through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), seeking not merely to initiate a dispute, but specifically demanding the full Method of Verification ( MOV ), including copies of all documentation, contracts, and communications that substantiate your reporting.\n\n3. Despite receiving certified notices, Experian has failed and refused to : Produce any wet-ink signature contracts between myself and XXXX XXXX XXXX \nSupply records validating XXXX continued legal standing to report the debt after having sold the account to a third-party collector. \nAcknowledge or respond to my explicit demands for private binding arbitration, thereby violating the Federal Arbitration Act.\n\n4. Following my last formal MOV demand submitted via the CFPB platform, Experian responded with two separate entries acknowledging that fraud existed on my account. \nInstead of removing the disputed fraudulent tradeline, names, and addresses as demanded, Experian unilaterally and without my authorization placed a new initial security alert on my consumer file. \nDespite acknowledging fraud, Experian continued its reckless and malicious refusal to correct the false information, thereby compounding the injury to my creditworthiness, reputation, and access to financial opportunities. \nThe scale and nature of this willful disregard are appalling and serve as direct evidence of bad faith, intentional infliction of harm, and deliberate noncompliance with federal statutes and industry obligations.\n\nApplicable Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy of information.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681b ( f ) Lack of permissible purpose to continue reporting invalid tradelines and personal data.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681g Failure to provide full consumer disclosure upon request. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 Impr\noper placement of security alerts without proper consumer authorization or explanation.\n\nFederal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1-16 Failure to engage in arbitration after valid invocation.\n\nCase Law Support : Cushman v. TransUnion Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3rd Cir. 1997 ) : Reporting agencies must go beyond the original creditor and conduct their own investigation.\n\nDennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 ( 9th Cir. 2008 ) : Failure to properly investigate constitutes willful noncompliance.\n\nGuimond v. TransUnion Credit Information Co., 45 F.3d 1329 ( 9th Cir. 1995 ) : Credit reporting agencies are liable for damages when they fail to maintain accurate records. \n\n\n\nFormal Demand for Immediate Resolution : You are hereby formally demanded to : 1. Immediately and permanently delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX tradeline and all associated fraudulent addresses and names.\n\n2. Provide the full Method of Verification ( MOV ) for all challenged items, including copies of original signed documents and a complete accounting of all investigative actions taken.\n\n3. Acknowledge acceptance of binding private arbitration should compliance not occur within the legally allotted time frame.\n\n4. Remit settlement payment in the amount of {$120000.00} for actual, statutory, and punitive damages associated with : Loss of credit opportunities. \nEmotional distress. \nReputational harm. \nWillful violations of federal consumer protection statutes. \nBad faith engagement and retaliatory security alert placement. \n\n\n\nNotice of Intent : Failure to comply within 15 calendar days from receipt of this notice shall constitute further willful noncompliance and result in : Immediate filing of complaints with the CFPB, FTC, and Office of the Attorney General.\n\nInitiation of binding private arbitration under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  rules.\n\nPreparation of a civil lawsuit seeking maximum allowable damages, attorney fees, and statutory penalties under federal law.\n\nThis letter constitutes a good-faith effort to resolve this matter privately and efficiently. \n\n\n\nRespectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX Private American National Authorized Representative Without Recourse XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX Private Settlement Offer Not for Public Disclosure","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-28T11:43:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13207475","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-28T11:42:52.000Z","state":"GA","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":["Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1-16 Failure to <em>engage</em> in arbitration after valid invocation.\n\nCase Law <em>Support</em> : Cushman v. TransUnion Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3rd Cir. 1997 ) : Reporting agencies must go beyond the original creditor and conduct their own investigation.\n\nDennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 ( 9th Cir. 2008 ) : Failure to properly investigate constitutes willful noncompliance.\n\nGuimond v."]},"sort":[9.33316,"13207475"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14918244","_score":7.5362034,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Updated complaint forwarded to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, Alabama XXXX [ Zip Exempt ] Passport Card # : XXXX Email : XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Agent for XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Inc. & Violation of CFPB Consent Order ( XXXX ) XXXX FDCPA Account No. : XXXX ( MCM No. XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. : XXXX XXXX XXXX, Alabama XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , a Non-Citizen National of XXXX United States of America under 8 U.S.C. 1101 ( a ) ( 21 ) and a Private, Non-U.S. Person, stand in honor, in equity, and under divine conscience. As a living woman of XXXX and lawful entitlement holder, I submit this formal complaint and demand for enforcement action against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for engaging in unlawful debt collection practices, including deceptive litigation conduct, failure to validate a debt, and violations of a binding CFPB Consent Order. I assert all rights secured by natural law, federal law, and constitutional protections. I bring this matter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for immediate review and remedy. \n\nBackground : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an attorney debt collector XXXX XXXX XXXX filed a lawsuit against XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Alabama, claiming I owe a debt originally issued by XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. I discovered the case upon a promotional letter from a law firm mentioning a lawsuit had been filed against me when I checked my post office box, so I went to clerk office to check Upon checking the public records at the clerk office in XXXX XXXX alabama and confirming the case, I immediately filed a as soon as I could on XX/XX/XXXX, which was the 14th day window within the proper time to preserve my rights.An answer & notice of response As of the date of this filing XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims remain open in dispute. \n\nEven if XXXX assigns a lawyer to sue, like XXXX XXXX Zarzaur XXXX is still liable if : The documentation is missing or incomplete The court action is deceptive or premature They continue collection without proper validation A debt buyer can not delegate away its legal obligations under federal law or a federal consent order even when it hires outside law firms or XXXX. \n\nThe CFPB Consent Order ( 2015-CFPB-0021 ) is enforceable not only against XXXX, but also against : any agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them. \n( See Section VI of the Order ) XXXX XXXX Zarzaur : Filed suit without validation, Used deceptive affidavits, Or continued ligitation after formal dispute litigation after a formal dispute Then his actions fall within the same prohibited conduct detailed in the Order and the FDCPA. \n\nOn Saturday, XX/XX/XXXX, I checked my business XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) in XXXX, Alabama, and discovered an attempted but failed delivery notice of a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, because the post office was closed at the time, I was unable to retrieve or review the contents of the letter that was attempted for delivery. \n\nI reserve the right to supplement this complaint with any additional evidence, facts, or legal updates as they become available. Nothing in any post-dated response by XXXX shall be deemed to cure the ongoing violations unless full statutory validation is provided in strict compliance with : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the FDCPA, the binding terms of CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX, and all other applicable state and federal laws. \n\nThis reservation is made explicitly to preserve all rights and claims as of the date of this submission. \n\nThis notice serves as further complaint, dispute and request for validation under : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) FDCPA including ( f through k ) 12 CFR 201.3 ( a ) ( 2 ), ( d ) 31 CFR 362.1 CFPB Consent Order 2015-CFPB-0021 Despite clear statutory obligations and the enforcement terms of the CFPB Consent Order, XXXX XXXX XXXX initiated litigation against me without providing any validation documents alongside the court summons. \n\nXXXX and its agents act in reliance on consumer ignorance, often taking actions that violate legal and ethical standards. most consumers do not know their rights and unfortunately, that is often true. But I stand on both the law and the truth of XXXX. For those of us who walk in knowledge and faith, deception has no power. As it is written, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ( XXXX XXXX ). I invoke both my lawful protections and my divine inheritance in submitting this complaint. \nI proceed in good faith, supported by my spiritual convictions and the rule of law. \n\nTo continue, the same alleged debt had previously been removed from my credit report following an unrelated action in which another law firm attempted to collect this debt but failed to establish proper jurisdiction. The debt has now been reinserted by XXXX and their agents without valid basis or notice, causing further damage to my credit report and financial standing. \n\nI have attached the contents for previous court case XXXX of the first debt collector attempting to collect this debt in care of XXXX  XXXX. \n\n\n\nViolations of Law : Acknowledging XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX all attorneys & agents working under them currently under an enforceable CFPB Consent Order ( Case No. XXXX ), which includes : Respondents shall have and produce all original account documentation necessary to prove the debt before initiating litigation Enforceable federal order under Dodd-Frank Act Quote ( Section III ( 2 ) ) : Section III ( 2 ), Page 8 Despite this, XXXX : Filed a lawsuit without required account-level documentation. \nSubmitted affidavits based on electronic records without personal knowledge. \nReinserted the alleged debt into my credit report after it was previously removed. \n\nThis is a direct violation of : FDCPA 1692g ( b ) FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) Deceptive practices FDCPA 1692f Unfair and unconscionable practices FCRA 1681n / 1681o Willful or negligent misreporting CFPB Consent Order Sections III ( 1 ), III ( 2 ), III ( 5 ), and III ( 6 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX have violated the FDCPA, including but not limited to sections : 1692c ( communication restrictions ), 1692d ( harassment ), 1692e ( false or deceptive practices ), XXXX  ( civil penalties ) Whether or not I disputed the alleged debt prior to litigation is immaterial. XXXX  & agents is not exempt from obligation under the 2015 CFPB Consent Order as it remains. They must possess and produce original account-level documentation prior to initiating a lawsuit, & upon dispute. In my case, they failed to provide with their litigation request : A signed credit agreement or contract, A complete chain of title from the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ), Valid affidavits made by persons with actual knowledge of the account. \n\nTherefore, until proven otherwise their actions are a violation of federal oversight and due process protections. \n\nGiven that original creditors often dispose of the original credit application and promissory note after 30 days, it is highly unlikely that XXXX & its agents possess the necessary documents to validate this debt under federal law ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ). \n\n\n\nThis position is supported by controlling case law and federal regulation : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Principle : Debt collectors may violate the FDCPA by misrepresenting the character or legal status of a debt.\n\nApplication : Filing suit without full documentation of ownership or liability can be construed as a misrepresentation under 15 U.S.C. 1692e. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Facts : A law firm filed a debt collection lawsuit without sufficient supporting documentation. \nRuling : The court held that filing suit without proper investigation or documentation, especially where debt ownership was unclear, can violate FDCPA provisions under 1692e ( false or misleading representations ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). \nQuote : Filing suit without adequate investigation or documentation can amount to harassment or abuse. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX : The FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection litigation. \nApplication : Even when a law firm represents MCM in court, their actions must still conform to the FDCPA, including ensuring proper documentation exists before initiating litigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Facts : A debt buyer initiated legal action without possessing meaningful proof of the alleged debt. \nHolding : The court found that suing without competent evidence of ownership and liability could violate consumer protections and due process rights. \nQuote : A debt buyer must provide competent evidence mere spreadsheets or summaries are insufficient. \n\n\n\nDue Process Concerns : When a debt buyer like MCM initiates litigation without authentic, account-level documentation : The defendant is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the validity or accuracy of the alleged debt, and Such actions violate constitutional due process protections, especially when resulting in default judgments based on inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. \n\n\n\nLegal Position & Support It is well-established that a debt collector must possess and be able to produce original, account-level documentation establishing both the validity of the debt and the chain of title. Filing litigation absent such evidence constitutes deceptive and unfair practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f ), and is a direct violation of due process. This conclusion is supported by multiple federal rulings, state precedent, and the 2015 CFPB Consent Order issued against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX which explicitly prohibits such practices. \n\nDeceptive Representation : XXXX and their attorney falsely implied I had lost the right to dispute the debt because I allegedly failed to respond within 30 days of an unknown notice. This is legally incorrect and intentionally misleading. \nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) : Consumers can dispute a debt at any time.\n\nCollection activity and litigation must cease until the debt is validated regardless of when the dispute is made.\n\nThis misrepresentation violates the FDCPA and the CFPB Consent Order, and also misled the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\n\nDemands for Validation Still Stand : This letter also acts as a formal dispute and renewed notice to XXXX XXXX XXXX and their agents. \n\nAlthough I previously gave XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) business day to produce full validation in my Notice of Response submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, this filing with the CFPB shall serve as a final opportunity to comply. I now grant an additional XXXX business day from receipt of this notice to provide full account-level documentation in accordance with the FDCPA and CFPB Consent Order XXXX. Failure to do so will constitute continued violation and bad faith, warranting full enforcement and relief. \n\n\nGiven Midlands experience as a seasoned debt buyer and their order by the cfpb to have these documents before ligitation, they are expected to possess : Original signed agreement or promissory note Full security agreement Full chain of assignment from XXXX  XXXX to XXXX Itemized account breakdown Sworn affidavit by someone with personal knowledge Any failure to produce this documentation renders the debt invalid and uncollectible, and all litigation and collection efforts must cease immediately, including credit reporting. \n\n\n\nHarm & Damages : Due to XXXX unlawful actions, I have experienced : Damage to my credit report Financial harm ( denial of credit and increased borrowing costs ) Emotional distress Time and expense defending myself in court without proper evidence Claim for Damages : Under federal law, I am seeking the following : FDCPA Statutory Damages {$1000.00} XXXX violations = {$3000.00} FCRA Statutory Damages {$1000.00} for unlawful reporting Actual Damages {$9000.00} for credit denials, stress, lost opportunity Punitive Damages To be determined based on severity and continued misconduct Total Damages Claimed to Date : {$13000.00} ( plus punitive to be added if further violations continue ) Requested Relief : I request the CFPB : 1. Investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for violation of CFPB Consent Order XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX to immediately withdraw the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Cease all collection efforts and credit reporting 4. Secure full compensation as outlined above or refer for civil enforcement Reservation of Rights : I reserve the right to supplement this complaint with additional evidence or legal updates as they become available. \n\n\n\nXXXX & its agents/attorneys is required to rebut & answer to this letter, which serves as an affidavit, point by point, addressing and proving every demand in full, with no omissions or inaccuracies. Partial documentation, such as a copy of a contract, vague debt breakdowns, or incomplete chains of assignment, will not suffice. To validate this debt, their response must include the original promissory note, a complete security agreement, and an unbroken chain of assignment from the original creditor to your entity, all supported by a sworn/affirmed affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury with a notary or pursuant to 28 USC 1746 ( 1 ). Any failure to fully meet these requirements, such as offering settlements, relying on generic right-to-collect statements, or asserting Holder in Due Course status without supporting documentation will result in the dismissal of the alleged debt and {$13000.00} in statutory and actual damages. Failure to rebut any of the points asserted herein will be deemed as an admission of the validity of my demands and claims, providing further evidence in support of my entitlement to statutory and actual damages. \n\n\nDeclaration of Status Disclosure and Request for Fairness in Law As evidenced by my XXXX Department of Stateissued Passport Card No. XXXX, I am a non-citizen national under 8 U.S.C. 1101 ( a ) ( 21 ) and a private XXXX XXXX. I assert my lawful entitlement to be free from unlawful or deceptive debt collection practices. I respectfully request that this dispute be evaluated fairly, under constitutional and consumer protection standards. This declaration is made & submitted in good faith, with clean hands, and without waiver of any rights. \n\n\n\nDeclaration : This document has been electronically signed in accordance with the E-Sign Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. 7001, and is legally binding I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united states of America ( without the United States ) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 ( 1 ), supported by Public Law 94-550, that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This letter shall serve as admissible evidence under FRE 902 ( 10 ) and is made in honor, equity, and clean hands. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX Entitlement Holder / Respondent Date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX : XXXX i XXXX, Signature :.,, See supporting documentation below XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -No Attachment of Any lawful Validation to sue for a debt 2. ) Notice Of Response to XXXX summons by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX letter Notifying me of Law Suit 3. ) Letter of Notice of Failed delivery from XXXX XXXX court on XXXX XXXX - XXXX will submit updates upon receipt of letter 4. ) Court judgement in XXXX with case number XXXX Ruled in my favor for wrong jurisdiction in XXXX XXXX Alabama -Debt collector previous attempt to sue For any further communication can be reached at by businesses address on letter, email directly or through cfpb portal.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. \n\nIn honor & good faith.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-29T02:15:26.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"367XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14918244","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Zarzaur and Schwartz, PC","date_received":"2025-07-29T00:33:35.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX : The FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly <em>engage</em> in consumer debt collection litigation. \nApplication : Even when a law firm represents MCM in court, their actions must still conform to the FDCPA, including ensuring <em>proper</em> documentation exists before initiating litigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Facts : A debt buyer initiated legal action without possessing meaningful proof of the alleged debt."]},"sort":[7.5362034,"14918244"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14928528","_score":7.2598047,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"From : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Alabama XXXX [ Zip Exempt ] Passport Card # : XXXX Email : XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Subject : Formal Complaint Against Midland Credit Management , Inc. \nViolation of CFPB Consent Order ( XXXX ) & FDCPA Account No. : XXXX ( MCM No. XXXX ) Case No. : XXXX XXXX XXXX, Alabama XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the United States of America under 8 U.S.C. 1101 ( a ) ( 21 ) and a Private, XXXX. Person, stand in honor, in equity, and under divine conscience. As a living woman of XXXX and lawful entitlement holder, I submit this formal complaint and demand for enforcement action against Midland Credit Management , Inc. for engaging in unlawful debt collection practices, including deceptive litigation conduct, failure to validate a debt, and violations of a binding CFPB Consent Order. I assert all rights secured by natural law, federal law, and constitutional protections. I bring this matter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for immediate review and remedy. \n\nBackground : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, Midland Credit Management , Inc. ( MCM ) filed a lawsuit against me in XXXX XXXX, Alabama, claiming I owe a debt originally issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX I was not properly served, and the only reason I discovered the case was due to a promotional letter from a law firm mentioning a lawsuit had been filed against me when I checked my post office box, so I went to clerk office to check Upon checking the public records at the clerk office in XXXX XXXX alabama and confirming the case, I immediately filed a Notice of Response as soon as I could on XX/XX/XXXX, which was the XXXX day window within the proper time to preserve my rights. \n\nAs of the date of this filing XX/XX/XXXX Midland Credit Management claims remain open in dispute. \n\nOn Saturday, XX/XX/XXXX, I checked my business XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Alabama, and discovered an attempted but failed delivery notice of a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, because the post office was closed at the time, I was unable to retrieve or review the contents of the letter that was attempted for delivery. I have attached paper below to show contents have not been received at this time of posting this to the cfpb portal.\n\nI reserve the right to supplement this complaint with any additional evidence, facts, or legal updates as they become available. Nothing in any post-dated response by Midland shall be deemed to cure the ongoing violations unless full statutory validation is provided in strict compliance with : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the FDCPA, the binding terms of CFPB Consent Order 2015-CFPB-0021, and all other applicable state and federal laws.\n\nThis reservation is made explicitly to preserve all rights and claims as of the date of this submission.\n\nThis notice serves as further complaint, dispute and request for validation under : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) FDCPA including ( f through k ) 12 CFR\n201.3 ( a ) ( 2 ), ( d ) 31 CFR 362.1 CFPB Consent Order 2015-CFPB-0021 Despite clear statutory obligations and the enforcement terms of the CFPB Consent Order, Midland Credit Management initiated litigation against me without providing any validation documents alongside the court summons. \n\nMidland and its agents act in reliance on consumer ignorance, often taking actions that violate legal and ethical standards. most consumers do not know their rights and unfortunately, that is often true. But I stand on both the law and the truth of XXXX. For those of us who walk in knowledge and faith, deception has no power. As it is written, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ( XXXX XXXX ). I invoke both my lawful protections and my divine inheritance in submitting this complaint. \nI proceed in good faith, supported by my spiritual convictions and the rule of law. \n\nTo continue, the same alleged debt had previously been removed from my credit report following an unrelated action in which another law firm attempted to collect this debt but failed to establish proper jurisdiction. The debt has now been reinserted by Midland and their agents without valid basis or notice, causing further damage to my credit report and financial standing. \n\nI have attached the contents for previous court case XXXX of the first debt collector attempting to collect this debt in care of XXXX XXXX \n\n\n\nViolations of Law : Acknowledging Midland Credit Management is currently under an enforceable CFPB Consent Order ( Case No. 2015-CFPB-0021 ), which includes : Respondents shall have and produce all original account documentation necessary to prove the debt before initiating litigation Enforceable federal order under Dodd-Frank Act Quote ( Section III ( 2 ) ) : Section III ( 2 ), Page 8 Despite this, Midland : Filed a lawsuit without required account-level documentation.\n\nSubmitted affidavits based on electronic records without personal knowledge.\n\nReinserted the alleged debt into my credit report after it was previously removed.\n\nThis is a direct violation of : FDCPA 1692g ( b ) FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) Deceptive practices FDCPA 1692f Unfair and unconscionable practices FCRA 1681n / 1681o Willful or negligent misreporting CFPB Consent Order Sections III ( 1 ), III ( 2 ), III ( 5 ), and III ( 6 ) Midland Credit Management possibly may have violated the FDCPA, including but not limited to sections : 1692c ( communication restrictions ), 1692d ( harassment ), 1692e ( false or deceptive practices ), 1692k ( civil penalties ) Whether or not I disputed the alleged debt prior to litigation is immaterial. MCMs obligation under the 2015 CFPB Consent Order remains. They must possess and produce original account-level documentation prior to initiating a lawsuit, & upon dispute. In my case, they failed to provide with their litigation request : A signed credit agreement or contract, A complete chain of title from the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ), Valid affidavits made by persons with actual knowledge of the account. \n\nTherefore, until proven otherwise their actions are a violation of federal oversight and due process protections.\n\nGiven that original creditors often dispose of the original credit application and promissory note after 30 days, it is highly unlikely that Midland & its agents possess the necessary documents to validate this debt under federal law ; 15 USC 1692g ( b ).\n\nThis position is supported by controlling case law and federal regulation : 1. Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc. , 460 F.3d 1162 ( 9th Cir. XXXX ) Principle : Debt collectors may violate the FDCPA by misrepresenting the character or legal status of a debt.\n\nApplication : Filing suit without full documentation of ownership or liability can be construed as a misrepresentation under 15 U.S.C. 1692e.\n\n2. McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939 ( 9th Cir. XXXX ) Facts : A law firm filed a debt collection lawsuit without sufficient supporting documentation.\n\nRuling : The court held that filing suit without proper investigation or documentation, especially where debt ownership was unclear, can violate FDCPA provisions under 1692e ( false or misleading representations ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ).\n\nQuote : Filing suit without adequate investigation or documentation can amount to harassment or abuse. \n\n\n\n3. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( XXXX ) Holding : The FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection litigation.\n\nApplication : Even when a law firm represents MCM in court, their actions must still conform to the FDCPA, including ensuring proper documentation exists before initiating litigation.\n\n4. Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E.2d 862 ( Ind. Ct. App. XXXX ) Facts : A debt buyer initiated legal action without possessing meaningful proof of the alleged debt.\n\nHolding : The court found that suing without competent evidence of ownership and liability could violate consumer protections and due process rights.\n\nQuote : A debt buyer must provide competent evidence mere spreadsheets or summaries are insufficient.\n\nDue Process Concerns : When a debt buyer like MCM initiates litigation without authentic, account-level documentation : The defendant is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the validity or accuracy of the alleged debt, and Such actions violate constitutional due process protections, especially when resulting in default judgments based on inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. \n\n\n\nLegal Position & Support It is well-established that a debt collector must possess and be able to produce original, account-level documentation establishing both the validity of the debt and the chain of title. Filing litigation absent such evidence constitutes deceptive and unfair practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f ), and is a direct violation of due process. This conclusion is supported by multiple federal rulings, state precedent, and the 2015 CFPB Consent Order issued against Midland Credit Management ( 2015-CFPB-0021 ), which explicitly prohibits such practices.\n\nDeceptive Representation : Midland and their attorney falsely implied I had lost the right to dispute the debt because I allegedly failed to respond within 30 days of an unknown notice. This is legally incorrect and intentionally misleading.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) : Consumers can dispute a debt at any time.\n\nCollection activity and litigation must cease until the debt is validated regardless of when the dispute is made.\n\nThis misrepresentation violates the FDCPA and the CFPB Consent Order, and also misled the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\n\nDemands for Validation Still Stand : This letter also acts as a formal dispute and renewed notice to Midland Credit Management and their agents.\n\nAlthough I previously gave Midland Credit Management one ( 1 ) business day to produce full validation in my Notice of Response submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, this filing with the CFPB shall serve as a final opportunity to comply. I now grant an additional 1 business day from receipt of this notice to provide full account-level documentation in accordance with the FDCPA and CFPB Consent Order 2015-CFPB-0021. Failure to do so will constitute continued violation and bad faith, warranting full enforcement and relief.\n\nGiven Midlands experience as a seasoned debt buyer and their order by the cfpb to have these documents before ligitation, they are expected to possess : Original signed agreement or promissory note Full security agreement Full chain of assignment from XXXX XXXX to Midland Itemized account breakdown Sworn affidavit by someone with personal knowledge Any failure to produce this documentation renders the debt invalid and uncollectible, and all litigation and collection efforts must cease immediately, including credit reporting. \n\n\n\nHarm & Damages : Due to Midlands unlawful actions, I have experienced : Damage to my credit report Financial harm ( denial of credit and increased borrowing costs ) Emotional distress Time and expense defending myself in court without proper evidence Claim for Damages : Under federal law, I am seeking the following : FDCPA Statutory Damages {$1000.00} 3 violations = {$3000.00} FCRA Statutory Damages {$1000.00} for unlawful reporting Actual Damages {$9000.00} for credit denials, stress, lost opportunity Punitive Damages To be determined based on severity and continued misconduct Total Damages Claimed to Date : {$13000.00} ( plus punitive to be added if further violations continue ) Requested Relief : I request the CFPB : 1. Investigate Midland Credit Management for violation of CFPB Consent Order 2015-CFPB-0021 2. Order Midland to immediately withdraw the XXXX XXXX lawsuit 3. Cease all collection efforts and credit reporting 4. Secure full compensation as outlined above or refer for civil enforcement Reservation of Rights : I reserve the right to supplement this complaint with additional evidence or legal updates as they become available. \n\n\n\nMidland & its agents/attorneys is required to rebut & answer to this letter, which serves as an affidavit, point by point, addressing and proving every demand in full, with no omissions or inaccuracies. Partial documentation, such as a copy of a contract, vague debt breakdowns, or incomplete chains of assignment, will not suffice. To validate this debt, their response must include the original promissory note, a complete security agreement, and an unbroken chain of assignment from the original creditor to your entity, all supported by a sworn/affirmed affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury with a notary or pursuant to 28 USC 1746 ( 1 ). Any failure to fully meet these requirements, such as offering settlements, relying on generic right-to-collect statements, or asserting Holder in Due Course status without supporting documentation will result in the dismissal of the alleged debt and {$13000.00} in statutory and actual damages. Failure to rebut any of the points asserted herein will be deemed as an admission of the validity of my demands and claims, providing further evidence in support of my entitlement to statutory and actual damages.\n\nDeclaration of Status Disclosure and Request for Fairness in Law As evidenced by my U.S. Department of Stateissued Passport Card No. C36221938, I am a XXXX national under 8 U.S.C. 1101 ( a ) ( 21 ) and a private American National. I assert my lawful entitlement to be free from unlawful or deceptive debt collection practices. I respectfully request that this dispute be evaluated fairly, under constitutional and consumer protection standards. This declaration is made & submitted in good faith, with clean hands, and without waiver of any rights.\n\nDeclaration : This document has been electronically signed in accordance with the E-Sign Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. 7001, and is legally binding I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united states of America ( without the United States ) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 ( 1 ), supported by Public Law 94-550, that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This letter shall serve as admissible evidence under FRE 902 ( 10 ) and is made in honor, equity, and clean hands.\n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX Entitlement Holder / Respondent Date : XX/XX/XXXX Email : XXXX, Signature :.,, See supporting documentation below XXXX. ) Midland Credit Summons in XXXX XXXX XXXX not properly delivered to Me, But Retrieved From XXXX XXXX Clerk Office -No Attachment of Any lawful Validation to sue for a debt 2. ) Notice Of Response to Midland summons by XXXX XXXX XXXX -Time stamped & acceptance of notice of response by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) Law Firm Promotion letter Notifying me of Law Suit 3. ) Letter of Notice of Failed delivery from XXXX XXXX court on XXXX XXXX - XXXX will submit updates upon receipt of letter XXXX. ) Court judgement in XXXX with case number XXXX Ruled in my favor for wrong jurisdiction in XXXX XXXX Alabama -Debt collector previous attempt to sue For any further communication can be reached at by businesses address on letter, email directly or through cfpb portal.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.\n\nIn honor & good faith.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T19:56:44.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"367XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14928528","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2025-07-28T19:31:00.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( XXXX ) Holding : The FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly <em>engage</em> in consumer debt collection litigation.\n\nApplication : Even when a law firm represents MCM in court, their actions must still conform to the FDCPA, including ensuring <em>proper</em> documentation exists before initiating litigation.\n\n4. Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E.2d 862 ( Ind. Ct. App. XXXX ) Facts : A debt buyer initiated legal action without possessing meaningful proof of the alleged debt."]},"sort":[7.2598047,"14928528"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14330060","_score":7.2124166,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this formal complaint against Experian for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681 et seq., and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ). Experian has consistently reported inaccurate and unverifiable information on my credit report despite multiple attempts to correct these errors. These inaccuracies are severely impacting my financial stability, creditworthiness, and mental well-being. The following accounts and information being reported are either incorrect, unverifiable, or a result of mishandling and negligence in maintaining accurate consumer information. I am requesting immediate deletion or correction of the following information under the authority granted by FCRA 1681i ( Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ), 1681e ( b ) ( reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ), and 1681c ( requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX Wrong Address This address does not belong to me. Reporting this false address is a violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 1681c. It suggests mixing of files or identity confusion. I have never lived or conducted any financial activity from this address. Reporting incorrect personal information harms my credit profile and can contribute to fraudulent linkage. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, OH XXXX Wrong Address This address is also inaccurate. I have no association with this property. Reporting of unrelated or incorrect addresses breaches FCRA 1681e ( b ). This is creating significant confusion and is potentially contributing to false account linkage and unauthorized inquiries. \nDEPTED/XXXX  # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX High Credit : {$1300.00} Late Payments This account is inaccurately reported with late payments. I demand a thorough investigation under FCRA 1681i. I was in communication with the servicer, and this account was under deferment or dispute status during the alleged late payment period. Reporting such while under dispute or deferment violates FCRA 1681s-2. \nDEPTED/XXXX # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX High Credit : {$2300.00} Late Payments This is a duplicate and improperly maintained version of the same loan. Experian failed to prevent duplication of the same debt with altered amounts, creating confusion and artificially damaging my credit. This violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. I demand immediate deletion or consolidation and correction. \nXXXX # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX High Credit : {$14000.00} Charge Off This account is reporting as a charge-off while I was actively in communication with the creditor. I was never properly notified of any default or collections activity, which violates the creditors obligations under FCRA 1681s-2 and FACTA guidelines. Reporting this as charged off without proper validation violates my right to dispute and due process. \nXXXX XXXX # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX High Credit : {$0.00} Charge Off This account is listed with a high balance of {$0.00} and still showing as charged off. This is inconsistent and misleading. A charge-off can not have a {$0.00} high balance and still be valid. This violates the \" maximum possible accuracy '' clause under FCRA 1681e ( b ) and must be deleted for being unverifiable and inaccurate. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX High Credit : {$500.00} Collection This collection was never validated to me per my rights under FDCPA 15 USC 1692g ( b ). Experian failed to ensure that a third-party debt collector verified this before reporting. Reporting unvalidated debts without notification or verification is a clear FCRA 1681i and FDCPA violation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX High Credit : {$270.00} Collection I was never informed about this debt, nor did I receive a validation notice. Reporting this debt violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( a ), as the accuracy and legitimacy of this entry can not be verified. I challenge its validity and request deletion under the FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry This inquiry was made without permissible purpose. I did not authorize this inquiry nor was I in a business transaction with this company. Under FCRA 1681b ( c ), a hard inquiry must be authorized by the consumer. This was unauthorized and must be removed. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry I did not grant permission to XXXX XXXX to access my credit. This is a clear violation of FCRA 1681b ( f ). They had no legitimate business need, and this unauthorized access is negatively affecting my credit profile. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry This hard inquiry was done without my knowledge or consent. I was not seeking credit from this company and I did not initiate any contact. Unauthorized hard inquiries violate FCRA 1681b. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry I dispute this inquiry. I never provided consent to XXXX XXXX XXXX. This violates FCRA 1681b ( c ), and I demand its removal. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Inquiry Duplicate and unauthorized inquiry. This appears twice within a very short period with no valid basis. This suggests system abuse or credit pulling without consumer initiation. Must be removed under FCRA 1681b. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry This credit pull was not authorized by me. I did not engage with this company, nor did I provide written or electronic authorization. This violates my rights under FCRA 1681b. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry I dispute this as unauthorized. I was not applying for any auto loan or financing through XXXX XXXX at this time. I demand removal for violation of FCRA 1681b. \nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry Unauthorized hard inquiry. I never submitted an application or credit request to XXXX. This inquiry must be removed under FCRA 1681b ( f ). \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry This was not a consumer-initiated inquiry. I did not provide authorization. Reporting this inquiry violates the permissible purpose rule under FCRA 1681b.\n\nExperian has failed to fulfill their legal obligations to conduct reasonable investigations and maintain accurate reporting. Under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ), if information is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable, it must be deleted within 30 days. Additionally, Experians continued inclusion of wrong addresses, unauthorized inquiries, duplicate account listings, and unverifiable debts demonstrate systematic failure to comply with FCRA guidelines and negligent data handling. These continued errors are causing me financial harm, denial of credit, emotional distress, and reputational damage. I request the CFPB to take immediate action to compel Experian to correct and delete the disputed information from my credit report and ensure compliance with federal law. I am attaching supporting documentation to validate my identity and support my claims.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-27T23:30:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"44240","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14330060","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-27T23:27:13.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am attaching <em>supporting</em> documentation to validate my identity and <em>support</em> my claims."]},"sort":[7.2124166,"14330060"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22806729","_score":7.206443,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"CONSUMER COMPLAINT TO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Submission Method : Online Portal Complaint Reference : [ CFPB CASE NUMBER - TO BE ASSIGNED ] ________________________________________ COMPLAINANT INFORMATION Full Legal Name : XXXX XXXX Current Mailing Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NV XXXX Primary Phone Number : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email Address : XXXX Jurisdiction : XXXX, Nevada ________________________________________ FINANCIAL INSTITUTION INFORMATION Company Name : Hyundai Motor Finance Company Product Type : Auto Loan/Vehicle Financing Vehicle Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Vehicle Identification Number ( VIN ) : XXXX Approximate Monthly Payment : {$670.00} Loan Origination Period : XXXX XXXX ________________________________________ DECEASED BORROWER INFORMATION Deceased Borrowers Full Legal Name : XXXX XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX Date of Death : XX/XX/XXXX Last Known Address : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, NV XXXX Last XXXX Digits of Social Security Number : XXXX Complainants Relationship to Deceased : Heir to the deceaseds estate with interest in preserving the vehicle asset Estate Status : The family is currently researching and looking into probate proceedings in Nevada. We recently received the death certificate after an extended waiting period, which delayed our ability to properly notify creditors and begin estate administration. \n________________________________________ DETAILED ISSUE DESCRIPTION Timeline of Events XXXX XXXX : XXXX  XXXX financed the XXXX XXXX XXXX  through Hyundai Motor Finance Company XXXX The financing included a trade-in of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX resulting in monthly payments of approximately {$670.00}. XXXX XXXX consistently made payments using her XXXX XXXX benefits. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX  XXXX passed away due to terminal XXXX that caused XXXX failure. Her death was unexpected despite her illness, creating immediate financial and logistical challenges for the family. \nXXXX XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX : The family was in the process of relocating residences by the end of XX/XX/XXXX. When XXXX XXXX passed away, the family became stuck with the moving process while simultaneously dealing with her death and estate matters. \nXX/XX/XXXX : The family was unable to make the scheduled monthly payment due to the immediate financial strain and housing instability caused by XXXX XXXX unexpected death. \nWithin the Last Sixty Days : I contacted Hyundai Motor Finance twice to notify them of my mothers passing and to request payment arrangements. During the first call, I specifically inquired about making a payment arrangement to maintain the loan in good standing. Hyundai Motor Finance denied this request without providing any explanation or alternative solutions. \nRecent Weeks : The family finally received XXXX XXXX death certificate after an extended waiting period, which had prevented us from properly documenting her death to creditors and financial institutions. \nCurrent Status : I have completed the relocation process. The XXXX XXXX XXXX  is now secured at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NV XXXX. The vehicle is covered by active insurance under my name, and I am the listed driver on the insurance policy. \nCommunication with Hyundai Motor Finance Despite my attempts to work with Hyundai Motor Finance in good faith, the company has provided no meaningful assistance or alternative solutions. The representatives I spoke with declined to offer payment arrangements without providing any explanation for this decision or information about other available options for families dealing with deceased borrower situations. \n________________________________________ CONSUMER PROTECTION CONCERNS Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Compliance Issues XXXX XXXX XXXX refusal to work with heirs on payment arrangements during the estate transition period raises concerns about potential violations of fair debt collection practices. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, financial institutions must provide reasonable accommodations and can not engage in unfair practices when dealing with family members of deceased borrowers. \nFailure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation Hyundai Motor Finance has failed to provide reasonable accommodation for estate-related circumstances. The companys rigid approach to deceased borrower situations demonstrates a lack of policies that consider the unique challenges families face during estate transitions, particularly when dealing with unexpected deaths and the time required to obtain necessary documentation such as death certificates. \nLack of Clear Communication About Options The company has demonstrated a lack of clear communication about available options for families of deceased borrowers. This absence of transparent communication violates consumer protection principles and leaves families without guidance during already difficult circumstances. \nNeed for Better Policies for Deceased Borrower Situations Hyundai Motor Finances current policies appear inadequate for handling deceased borrower situations in a manner that complies with federal consumer protection laws. The companys approach fails to recognize the legitimate interests of heirs who wish to preserve vehicle assets and continue loan payments during estate administration. \n________________________________________ FINANCIAL IMPACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES Immediate Financial Strain and Housing Instability XXXX  XXXX unexpected death created immediate financial strain and housing instability for me and my family. The timing of her death coincided with our planned relocation, which compounded the financial and logistical challenges we faced. This situation forced us to manage estate matters, complete a move, and attempt to maintain loan obligations simultaneously. \nTemporary Financial Difficulty with Commitment to Payment While I am experiencing temporary financial difficulty due to the circumstances surrounding my mothers death and our forced relocation, I remain committed to maintaining the loan payments. The vehicle represents my mothers hard work and dedication, as she consistently made payments using her Social Security benefits from the time she financed the car. \nPreservation of Vehicle Asset The XXXX XXXX XXXX represents a significant asset of my mothers estate and a testament to her hard work prior to her death. The familys desire to preserve this asset is both financially prudent and emotionally important as we honor her memory and the efforts she made to secure reliable transportation.\n\n________________________________________ DESIRED RESOLUTION AND CFPB ACTION REQUESTED Investigation into Hyundai Motor Finance Practices I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate Hyundai Motor Finances practices regarding deceased borrower situations and their compliance with federal consumer protection laws. This investigation should examine whether the companys policies and procedures adequately protect the rights of family members and heirs during estate transitions. \nMediation and Dispute Resolution I request that the CFPB facilitate mediation between my family and Hyundai Motor Finance to establish a reasonable payment arrangement that allows us to maintain the vehicle while properly administering my mothers estate. A dispute resolution meeting would provide an opportunity for both parties to reach a fair agreement that honors my mothers memory and hard work. \nPayment Arrangement or Loan Modification I seek the CFPBs assistance in facilitating a reasonable payment arrangement or loan modification that takes into account the unique circumstances of my mothers death and the familys commitment to maintaining the loan. Such an arrangement should provide adequate time for estate administration while preserving the vehicle asset. \nTimeline for Response Given the urgent nature of the estate situation and the risk of further complications, I request that Hyundai Motor Finance be required to contact me within fifteen ( 15 ) days of receiving this complaint to discuss resolution options. \n________________________________________ SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND CURRENT STATUS Vehicle Security and Insurance Coverage The XXXX XXXX XXXX  is currently secured at my residence at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NV XXXX. The vehicle is covered by active insurance under my name, and I am the listed driver on the insurance policy. This demonstrates my commitment to maintaining the vehicle properly and my ability to assume responsibility for its care and maintenance. \nCommunication Preferences I request that Hyundai Motor Finance contact me by phone at ( XXXX ) XXXX and provide an email address for ongoing communication regarding this matter. Clear and direct communication channels will facilitate resolution and prevent further misunderstandings.\n\nEstate Administration Context While the family continues to research and pursue proper estate administration procedures in Nevada, the immediate need to address the vehicle loan can not wait for the completion of lengthy probate proceedings. The vehicles preservation is essential to maintaining the estates assets and honoring my mothers investment in reliable transportation. \n________________________________________ REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND LEGAL BASIS This complaint is submitted pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX, which establishes the CFPBs authority to investigate consumer complaints and ensure compliance with federal consumer financial protection laws. The issues raised in this complaint implicate several areas of federal consumer protection law : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX handling of this matter raises questions about compliance with FDCPA requirements regarding communication with family members of deceased borrowers and the provision of reasonable accommodations during estate transitions. \nCFPB Regulation F ( 12 CFR Part 1006 ) : The companys communication practices and response to family member inquiries should comply with current regulatory requirements for debt collection communications and frequency limitations.\n\nTruth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 ) and Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ) : These laws provide additional consumer protections that should inform how financial institutions handle deceased borrower situations and work with family members seeking to preserve loan relationships.\n\n________________________________________ CONCLUSION AND HOPE FOR RESOLUTION I express hope that CFPB intervention will lead to a fair resolution that honors my mothers memory and hard work. XXXX  XXXX was a dedicated individual who consistently paid for this vehicle using her XXXX XXXX benefits from the time she financed it. Her commitment to maintaining her financial obligations should be respected, and her familys desire to preserve the vehicle she worked so hard to obtain should be accommodated through reasonable payment arrangements. \nThe resolution of this matter will not only serve my familys interests but will also establish important precedents for how financial institutions should handle deceased borrower situations with compassion, transparency, and compliance with federal consumer protection laws. \nI respectfully request the CFPBs prompt attention to this matter and assistance in achieving a resolution that allows my family to honor my mothers legacy while maintaining the vehicle that represents her hard work and dedication. \n________________________________________ ATTESTATION AND SIGNATURE I, XXXX XXXX XXXX hereby attest that the information provided in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that providing false information to a federal agency may result in penalties under applicable law. I authorize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to share this complaint with Hyundai Motor Finance Company for the purpose of facilitating resolution of this matter.\n\nI further attest that I have made good faith efforts to resolve this matter directly with Hyundai Motor Finance Company before submitting this complaint to the CFPB, and that the company has not provided reasonable accommodation or alternative solutions to address the circumstances arising from my mothers death. \n________________________________________ Contact Information for Follow-Up : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX XXXX : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-02T15:14:58.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"89512","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22806729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA","date_received":"2026-06-02T15:09:03.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Denied request to lower payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Estate Administration Context While the family continues to research and pursue <em>proper</em> estate administration procedures in Nevada, the immediate need to address the vehicle loan can not wait for the completion of lengthy probate proceedings."]},"sort":[7.206443,"22806729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15141227","_score":6.646558,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Misconduct by Debt XXXX  Attorney ( XX/XX/XXXX Hearing ) Background I am filing this complaint to report unethical and misleading conduct by XXXX XXXX XXXX, an attorney with XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ), during a court hearing related to a debt collection case on XX/XX/XXXX. I am a consumer debtor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) who has been subject to XXXX collection efforts on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The hearing in question was part of the legal proceedings to collect an alleged debt ( a deficiency balance from an auto loan ). I attended this hearing pro XXXX ( without an attorney ) to explain my situation and hardship, but XXXX XXXX conduct during the proceeding was highly improper. \n\nThis complaint focuses on XXXX key issues from that hearing : Misleading statements about my residence : XXXX XXXX falsely claimed I said I was only visiting my sisters home and asserted that XXXX XXXX confirm an address for me. \nDismissal of financial hardship : She openly dismissed my financial difficulties, even stating that my efforts to support my college-bound child were merely a choice, not a real hardship. \nDownplaying wage garnishment harm : She minimized the impact of the ongoing {$170.00} per paycheck wage garnishment, implying that this amount was trivial and not harmful to me. \n\nTaken together, these actions show a pattern of misrepresentation, unprofessionalism, and unfair treatment of a consumer in a court proceeding. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate this attorneys conduct and XXXX broader courtroom practices for potential violations of consumer protection laws and professional ethics. Below I provide details on each issue, why I believe its abusive or misleading, and how it fits into a broader pattern of legal bullying by XXXX \n\nMisleading Statements About My Address During the XX/XX/XXXX hearing, XXXX XXXX mischaracterized my living situation to the court. She claimed that I had stated I was only visiting my sisters residence, insinuating that I had no permanent address and that XXXX  was unable to confirm where I live. This is a false and misleading statement. In reality, I have been residing with my sister out of necessity due to XXXX XXXX  I was not merely a short-term visitor. I provided XXXX and the court with accurate contact information. There was no legitimate basis for the attorney to suggest that I was transient or hiding my address. \n\nKnowingly giving false or distorted information to a court is a serious ethical violation. Attorneys have a duty of candor toward the tribunal, meaning they must not make false statements of fact to a judge. XXXX XXXX statement about my address was not only untrue, but it painted me in a negative light as if I were evading contact which could unfairly prejudice my case. I felt this was a deliberate attempt to mislead the judge and discredit me. \n\nIts worth noting that this address-related misrepresentation is not an isolated incident for XXXX. In a recent federal case ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), a consumer alleged that XXXX intentionally provided incorrect addresses to a process server in order to secure a default judgment without the debtors knowledge. In that case, the plaintiff ( XXXX ) had actually lived at her current address all along, and XXXX knew or should have known it, yet XXXX agent swore she couldnt be found leading to a default judgment that the consumer discovered only later. The complaint in XXXX even described XXXX conduct as malicious, accusing the firm of intentionally using bad addresses to prevent proper notice. This pattern is eerily similar to what happened in my hearing : XXXX  attorney claimed inability to confirm my address despite having my information, thereby casting me as unreachable or uncooperative. Such behavior, if deliberate, represents an unfair and deceptive practice in debt collection. It violates the spirit of honesty expected in court and potentially the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) provisions against false or misleading representations. \n\nDismissing My Financial Hardship as a Choice Another troubling incident was XXXX XXXX dismissive response to my explanation of financial hardship. I told the court that I am struggling to keep up with the debt because I am XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Rather than show any understanding, XXXX XXXX retorted that my decision to help my XXXX  child was a choice. In context, her tone was derisive effectively suggesting that my hardship is self-inflicted or not worthy of consideration because I chose to support my childs education. \n\nI found this remark highly unprofessional and insulting. Supporting ones child XXXX XXXX is not a frivolous choice it is a normal parental responsibility and a matter of necessity for the childs future. I was raising a genuine issue of financial strain, which is directly relevant in a debt collection context ( for instance, when discussing ability to pay or the impact of garnishment on my family ). Instead of addressing this respectfully, the attorney essentially shamed me for prioritizing my child. This tactic felt like an attempt to undermine my credibility and to persuade the court that my hardship should be ignored. \n\nSuch behavior raises concerns under professional ethics and fairness to consumers. An attorney should not ridicule or belittle a debtor for their family obligations. While vigorous representation of a clients interests is expected, there is a line between advocacy and harassment or abuse. The FDCPA prohibits debt XXXX from engaging in harassing or oppressive conduct ( 1692d ) and from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt ( 1692f ). While XXXX XXXX comment XXXX have been XXXX as a legal argument, its effect was to harass and humiliate. It shows a lack of basic respect and could be seen as an attempt to psychologically pressure me in a courtroom setting. This contributes to an atmosphere of XXXX XXXX, where the consumer debtor is made to feel ashamed for circumstances that are in fact common and understandable. \n\nDownplaying the Harm of a {$170.00} Wage Garnishment Perhaps most alarming was how XXXX XXXX minimized the impact of the ongoing wage garnishment against me. Currently, XXXX ( on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) is garnishing {$170.00} from each of my paychecks. For me, as a single income earner with substantial family responsibilities, this is a significant loss of income. I tried to convey to the court that this garnishment amount ( taken from every check ) is causing serious financial strain affecting my ability to pay rent, utilities, and other essentials. \n\nXXXX XXXX, however, downplayed this harm, suggesting that {$170.00} per paycheck was not a big deal or not enough to warrant relief. I was stunned by the lack of empathy and the disregard for how garnishment truly impacts consumers. A sum of {$170.00} per pay period is far from trivial. In fact, under Oklahoma law ( and federal law via the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), up to 25 % of a debtors disposable weekly earnings can be taken via wage garnishment. Taking one-quarter of someones paycheck can absolutely destabilize their finances and push them into hardship. Even amounts less than the maximum can cause undue stress and make it difficult to cover basic expenses. According to a report by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, wage garnishment often can cause undue stress and bury you deeper into financial hardship. For many Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, losing even a small portion of income can lead to missed bills or inability to afford necessities. \n\nBy brushing off the harm of the garnishment, the attorney ignored the real-world consequences on me and my family. This attitude is not only callous ; its also indicative of a broader strategy to trivialize the consumers plight in order to justify aggressive collection. It felt as though XXXX XXXX was telling the court that I was overreacting, when in truth the law firm was taking a significant chunk of my pay regularly. This kind of minimization is an unfair practice, as it attempts to gloss over the very consumer protections that limit garnishment for the sake of peoples livelihood. The FDCPAs purpose is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices and protect consumers from unjust harm. An attorney who casually suggests that stripping away part of someones paycheck is inconsequential is not acting in the spirit of fair or responsible debt collection. \n\nConcerns About XXXX XXXX and Unfair Treatment The incidents above demonstrate a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional, unethical, and abusive toward me as a consumer debtor. Misrepresenting facts to the court, dismissing genuine hardship, and making light of a legally-sanctioned XXXX of wages all point to a disrespect for both truth and fairness. Such conduct XXXX violate the standards set by both legal ethics rules and consumer protection laws : Misrepresentation/Candor : As noted, attorneys must not lie or mislead in court. Providing false information ( e.g., about my address or statements I allegedly made ) breaches the duty of candor. It also potentially violates FDCPA 1692e, which forbids false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection. In my case, the misleading statement aimed to portray me as someone who can not be contacted or trusted, which could influence the judges decisions. This is unfair to me and corrupts the integrity of the process. \nXXXX XXXX : The XXXX  remark about my family being a choice crosses a line into personal ridicule. FDCPA XXXX692d prohibits conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in debt collection. Making me feel ashamed for supporting my child was unnecessary and served no purpose other than to intimidate and emotionally distress me. Consumers in debt should still be treated with dignity ; being in debt is not a moral failing that deserves scorn in a courtroom. \nUnfair or Unconscionable Means : Downplaying the impact of garnishment, in context, was an attempt to deny the reality of my financial hardship and push forward an aggressive collection despite the harm. This goes against the notion of treating consumers fairly. Its well documented that wage garnishment can wreak havoc on a persons finances, yet the attorney spoke as if I shouldnt be hurting at all. Such a stance could be seen as an attempt to deceive the court into thinking the garnishment is harmless, thereby justifying continued or increased collection actions. Using the legal process in a way that neglects the human impact can rise to the level of being unconscionable, especially if the goal is to bulldoze any objections or pleas for relief. \n\nIn sum, XXXX XXXX conduct during the hearing was extremely unfair to me as a consumer. I left the courtroom feeling not only defeated but also disrespected and misled. I believe any objective observer would question whether this behavior meets the standards expected of officers of the court, or the standards set by consumer protection laws. \n\nPattern of Legal XXXX XXXX XXXX  My experience with XXXX  appears to be part of a broader pattern of aggressive and abusive tactics this firm employs against consumers. I have since learned that multiple complaints and lawsuits have arisen involving XXXX debt collection practices, reinforcing my concerns that XXXX engages in legal bullying. For context : Numerous Consumer Complaints : The XXXX XXXX XXXX reports XXXX complaints against XXXX in the past 3 years ( XXXX in the last XXXX XXXX alone ). Many of these complaints describe troubling conduct. For example, XXXX consumer in XX/XX/XXXX alleged that XXXX unlawfully and knowingly garnished 25 % of their paycheck and refused to communicate or respond to the consumers attempts to resolve the debt, calling the firms actions unfair under [ the ] XXXX XXXX.. Another consumer reported being subjected to 11 years of on-and-off wage garnishments by XXXX, during which interest accumulated astronomically a debt that started around {$2000.00} had ballooned to over {$22000.00} due to interest and fees. That complaint also noted the person was never properly served ( only learning of actions through employer notices ) and that XXXX was unresponsive to information requests. These accounts paint a picture of a firm that uses the courts and garnishments in a punitive, relentless manner, without proper transparency or fairness to the consumer. \nFDCPA Lawsuits Against RHF : Beyond informal complaints, XXXX  practices have been challenged in court by other consumers. In early XXXX, a class-action lawsuit was filed ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of a group of consumers alleging abusive debt collection tactics by XXXX. That case centered on the kind of default judgment tricks I referenced earlier ( sewer service and obtaining judgments without proper notice ). Additionally, in XXXX, another consumer ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) filed a federal lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Court records show that case involved XXXX XXXX XXXX as the original creditor and included allegations that XXXX obtained a default judgment by publication notice and then pursued wage garnishment across state lines. The very exhibits in the XXXX case ( such as an Affidavit of Due Diligence and Motion to Enter Default Judgment without Notice ) suggest a scenario where XXXX might have claimed inability to locate the consumer to justify not giving proper notice, and then moved straight to default and garnishment. This is strikingly similar to the misrepresentation about address that I encountered and underscores that XXXX tactics are systematic. \nXXXX XXXX as a XXXX XXXX : XXXX is a debt collection law firm that regularly sues consumers to collect debts on behalf of creditors. By their own acknowledgement, they operate as an agent for their client and seek judgments for the full balance plus fees and high interest. XXXX is very much a third-party debt collector subject to the FDCPAs requirements. Unfortunately, their pattern of conduct as evidenced by my experience and those of others suggests they XXXX skirt these requirements and rely on the intimidation factor of lawsuits and court orders. The term lXXXX XXXX comes to mind : using the legal system not just to collect what is owed, but to overwhelm and intimidate consumers so they feel they have no voice or rights. \n\nIn my case, the misleading statements and disrespectful treatment during the hearing made me feel exactly that bullied and powerless. I worry that many other consumers in Oklahoma ( and even in other states ) are being steamrolled by XXXX  in similar ways : getting hit with default judgments without proper process, facing wage garnishments that cripple their finances, and being treated without basic respect or honesty in court. This goes against the very purpose of our consumer protection laws. The FDCPA was enacted to ensure debt XXXX do not abuse or mistreat consumers, and to prevent exactly the kind of unscrupulous tactics that XXXX is accused of employing. Yet, without oversight, a firm like this can leverage the courts to its advantage and push consumers into corners, as I have personally experienced. \n\nDesired Resolution and Action Requested I respectfully request the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate and take appropriate action regarding the conduct described above. Specifically, I ask that the CFPB : Investigate Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the XX/XX/XXXX hearing for potential violations of federal consumer financial laws ( such as the FDCPA ). Making misleading statements in a debt collection proceeding and engaging in harassing or abusive behavior towards a consumer debtor could constitute violations that fall under the CFPBs purview. Her actions should be reviewed in light of the FDCPAs provisions against false, deceptive, or unfair practices. \nExamine XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX overall courtroom and collection practices. I urge the XXXX to look beyond this XXXX incident and evaluate whether XXXX  patterns default judgments without proper notice, long-term garnishments with mounting interest, refusal to communicate with debtors, and disrespectful treatment in litigation amount to systemic abuse. If a pattern of legal bullying or bad-faith litigation tactics is found, the CFPB should use its authority to enforce the law, which might include sanctions, consent orders, or referrals to other regulators ( such as state bar associations or state attorneys general ) as appropriate. \nEnsure consumer protection and fair treatment. As a desired outcome, I want XXXX ( and its attorneys ) to be held accountable and compelled to treat consumers lawfully and ethically. This could mean requiring the firm to cease any deceptive or unfair practices, provide proper notice and communication to consumers, and train their staff on compliance with the FDCPA and professional ethics. In my specific case, I also seek relief from the aggressive collection tactics for instance, a reevaluation of the garnishment in light of my hardship, conducted fairly and without misrepresentations. More broadly, I hope the CFPBs intervention will prevent other consumers from suffering the kind of mistreatment I experienced. \n\nIn conclusion, what happened to me in court on XX/XX/XXXX was not just a personal slight it was part of a larger abusive debt collection practice that needs to be addressed. No consumer should have to endure being misled or demeaned by a debt XXXX attorney in a courtroom. By taking action, the CFPB can help ensure that debt collection firms like XXXX uphold the law and respect consumers rights and dignity during the legal process. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. \n\nSources : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Order on Motion to Dismiss ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). ( Allegations of XXXX using incorrect addresses to obtain default judgments ; court discussion of FDCPA purpose to eliminate abusive practices. ) XXXX. XXXX Complaint against XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and ( XX/XX/XXXX ). ( XXXX reports of unfair garnishment practices, lack of communication, and decade-long collection efforts with huge interest accrual. ) XXXX. Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule XXXX Candor Toward the XXXX. ( Prohibits attorneys from making false statements of fact to a court. ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX Firm All You Need to Know About Wage Garnishment ( XXXX ). ( Explains that wage garnishment can take a significant portion of income and push people into financial hardship. ) XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX website / Consumer advice article. ( Confirms XXXX is a debt collector subject to FDCPA and that they pursue full judgments with interest on behalf of creditors. ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, PLLC Complaint ( XXXX. XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX ). ( FDCPA lawsuit involving XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ; references to default judgment by publication and garnishment. ) XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( Shows XXXX consumer complaints in last XXXX years, indicating a pattern of issues reported by consumers. )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-08T00:25:12.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"78109","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15141227","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Robinson & Hoover","date_received":"2025-08-08T00:21:31.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This could mean requiring the firm to cease any deceptive or unfair practices, provide <em>proper</em> notice and communication to consumers, and train their staff on compliance with the FDCPA and professional ethics. In my specific case, I also <em>seek</em> relief from the aggressive collection tactics for instance, a reevaluation of the garnishment in light of my hardship, conducted fairly and without misrepresentations."]},"sort":[6.646558,"15141227"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13250517","_score":6.212943,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"WELLS FARGO IS PARTICIPATING WITH CONVICTED CRIMINAL BANK/S! BY FAILING TO WARN CUSTOMERS OF XXXX XXXX  CONVICTED CRIMINAL RECORD AND XXXX 's OVERWHELMING LONG STANDIG FRAUD KEPT HIDDEN TO CUSTOMERS/ THE PUBLIC CAUSED ME EMOTIONAL AND A FINANCIAL HARM OF {$92000.00}. \n\nThis report and its attachments will detail how I have learned and experienced first-hand that Wells Fargo XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXX / XXXX  are using a/or the like rinse and repeat cycle of illegality ( employee and/or bad actor customers fraud / scammers ) at a cost to me of theft from XXXX XXXX, a convicted criminal enterprise , in the amount of {$84000.00} ( wired from Wells Fargo of {$21000.00} to XXXX XXXX  on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and a wire of {$62000.00} to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of {$7900.00} XXXX \n\nDuring my research I have uncovered evidence that strongly supports that XXXX XXXX  and its bank employees is, has and continues to allow criminals to operate within XXXX XXXX to include what appears to be bank employees continuing to help open up accounts for malicious bad actor criminals even after XXXX XXXX plead guilty in XXXX, and now is a convicted criminal. Wells Fargo has been convicted of crimes as well and it's important to note that Wells Fargo failed to protect me from the convicted criminal known as XXXX XXXX \n\nFurthermore, I am stunned to learn that when banks like Wells Fargo and XXXX XXXX  are convicted and fined the banks and the bank employees being convicted criminal is, has and continues to allow criminals employees and criminal customers to operate within their banks that the banks position of court convictions and fines are coined as \" just the cost of doing business '' resulting in and at the cost of financial harm and emotional distress to innocent customers like myself who trusted the banks word that the banks services are safe and secure would be an understatement. \n\nUntil these bankers GO TO PRISON this will continue so all that read this need to help get the word out and demand justice does not stop at fines but also must include PRISON time for the convicted criminal bankers as fines obviously are not deterring the Bankers to engage in crimes. \n\nFirst, I'd like to ask why and how is it not a law for banks to inform and warn customers of danger and that they or the bank customers XXXX send money to has a criminal records and employees who are criminals who support these banking crimes for a fee etc. instead of the bank/s declaring they are safe and secure? \n\nCase in point. My bank, Wells Fargo, should have warned me prior or at the time of any dealings with XXXX and/or XXXX XXXX and or any attempts to send money by any means through XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX should have had a full disclosure notice and warning of but not limited to the subjects and issues within this report or by any other appropriate method/s. \n\nFurthermore, Wells Fargo failure to do so caused me to a financial injury in the amount of {$92000.00} as well as THREATS OF BEING HARMED by a convicted criminal, XXXXXXXX XXXX and its criminal bank employees and customer/s which has caused financial and emotional distress to me and my family that will last us a lifetime. \n\nI am HORRIFIED to have learned after the fact that, like Wells Fargo, XXXX XXXX has a CRIMINAL RECORD which Wells Fargo should have warned me about wherein XXXX XXXX plead GUILTY and has a reputation of lacking security policies allowing criminals into their bank/s as well as bank employees on the take working as criminals and supporting the criminal customers wherein the bank became a criminal themselves as evidenced in the court case XXXX XXXX plead guilty to in late XXXX, labeled as a historic crime spanning nearly a decade. The bank is to pay nearly XXXX XXXX dollars in fines/ penalties XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX In the words of XXXX XXXX XXXX  own employees : the banks XXXX failures made it convenient for criminals.\n\nWithin the case it is basically said the banks are to be the first line of defense against crimes not to be a criminal themselves, and By making its services convenient for criminals, XXXX XXXX became one, said Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX. Today, XXXXXXXX XXXX also became the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures, and the first US bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money XXXX XXXX  chose profits over compliance with the law And, these failures made the bank an easy target for the bad guys. These failures also allowed corrupt bank employees to facilitate a criminal And, The bank was aware of these risks and failed to take steps to protect against them, including for two networks prosecuted in New Jersey and elsewhere And, XXXX XXXX  became the bank of choice for multiple money laundering organizations and criminal actors and processed hundreds of millions of dollars in money laundering transactions. \n\nAnd, Let me be clear : our investigation continues, and no individual involved in XXXX XXXX illegal conduct is off limits. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  involvement in this historic money laundering scandal included several bank employees supporting the international crimes and schemes. It was found that their lack of security policies contributed to a climate as a bank of choice for but not limited to corrupt employees, criminals/ bad actors / money mules/ fraud / induced fraud / authorized fraud crimes. \n\nToday it seems XXXX  XXXX  is and continues to be a known safe haven for money mules and criminals alike of which I am now another victim of XXXX XXXX failure to be a secure bank and instead is a known bank of and for bad actors/ criminals with corrupt criminal bank employees who work with and support bad actor criminal customers. \n\nDuring my investigation into the theft of {$84000.00} by XXXX XXXX  criminal employees and customers I have found what appears to show that XXXX XXXX  continues to have a problem with criminals operating in their bank and/or corrupt employees helping the money mule criminals open accounts continuing to rob/ steal / commit fraud and scams against other innocent banking customers, myself included ( see the attached \" cfpb-1 XXXX and Wires Wells Fargo Claims for XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and two Exhibit files in support ). \n\nThe criminal case XXXX XXXX  plead guilty to exposes the bank has operated with criminals in a similar way and that bank employees are deeply involved in the crimes, in summary : The Charges : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. unit faced charges for failing to maintain proper anti-money laundering ( AML ) controls for nearly a decade, from XXXX to XXXX. \n\nThe Failure : Prosecutors stated that the bank 's \" long-term, pervasive, and systemic deficiencies '' in its XXXX policies XXXX criminals to launder money through its branches. \n\nExamples of The Money Laundering : - One money laundering network, with the help of bribed employees, processed more than {$470.00} XXXX through the bank through large cash deposits into nominee accounts. \n\n- Another scheme involved five bank employees who helped facilitate the transfer of {$39.00} XXXX in illicit funds to XXXX. \n\n- A third scheme involved a money laundering network with accounts for at least five shell companies that moved more than {$100.00} XXXX in illicit funds. \n\nXXXX XXXX criminal acts and criminal employees does not stop there as recently yet another XXXX XXXX  employee, a XXXX XXXX who worked in XXXX XXXX XXXX anti-money-laundering department has pleaded guilty to a felony in connection with a check-fraud scheme and took possession of customers ' personally identifiable information. \n\nXXXX XXXX Attorney XXXX XXXX stated \" This defendant brazenly exploited her position for her own personal profit, '' and he said \" We take all fraud in the banking and financial services industry extremely seriously, no matter what form it takes. \". This case against XXXX grew out of a probe focused on check fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX  stated in the XXXX XXXX DOJ XXXX case they plead guilty to that it takes full responsibility for its XXXX program failures and is making significant investments and enhancements to meet regulatory obligations and protect the financial system. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Shareholder meeting just publicly admitted the convicted bank criminals caused extraordinary pain, the darkest day for the bank and that they encourage accountability and to be more curious about all these issues. \n\nI find XXXX XXXX is failing this obligation / accountability as evidenced herein and within my reports! \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX multi-billion dollar conviction sentencing agreement/s mandates that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX to commit NO FURTHER CRIMES ; ''. \n\nIt appears Wells Fargo is working with banks that appear to continue engaging in criminal acts/ behavior which means we must ask/ look into if Wells Fargo is in violation of their sentencing agreements too? The bank should look into what that means to violate a sentencing agreement/s. \n\nIt's prudent that Wells Fargo and XXXX XXXX  takes responsibility for its failures and make me whole, return the entirety of the wired funds stolen by the banks, banks employees and/or the bank 's criminal client/s the banks let into their business in the amount of {$84000.00} ( plus Wells Fargo XXXX total of {$7900.00} ). Transaction details and additional evidence of the induced / authorized fraud provided in the attached files. \n\nOne remedy available to victims/ myself if I am not made whole / reimbursed is to reach out to every agency identified in the court case/s to investigate if Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX and/or XXXX XXXX  is in XXXX XXXX any sentencing agreements, court ordered obligations or any laws and to ask for help to bring any new investigations and charges against the banks. Obviously the media will be all over this story ( to include XXXX and others who reported on the cases against Wells Fargo and XXXX XXXX  in the past )! \n\nThe costs and time the bank/s will put towards defending themselves and answering all those agencies and the media, not to mention customers who learn of this will be far greater than making me whole in the amount of {$92000.00}! Then and only then will I go away! \n\nThe herein and attached files being provided to Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX includes extensive evidence and support Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX of fraud ( aka induced fraud / authorized fraud ) wherein bank employees and/or money mules/ criminals within the bank/s use shell companies and/or individuals with fake names/ aliases appearing/ pretending to provide legitimate services the victims are purportedly paying for to make it appear as if the financial transactions are legitimate all of which has been knowingly taking place within these banks for over a decade which could very well pose a grave challenge to the banks if I am NOT made whole as I will be forced to report the banks as ( but not limited to ) described herein ( breach of court sentencing agreements are taken serious by the authorities and the courts ). This investigation could also reveal even more XXXX XXXX criminal employees and/or crimes! \n\nUnderstand if I am not made whole then even if this is classified by anyone as not the same crime I will seek to have the banks crime/s classified as but not limited to \" Conduct beyond the offense of conviction : Actions that are part of a larger scheme or plan, even if they don't directly relate to the offense for which the defendant was convicted '' and/or the like, or a new case of its own or whatever the authorities deem appropriate and ask to have any and all parties/ banks culpable enjoined as well as but not limited to having me added to the victims and remedies list to be awarded damages, fines, fees, interest, pain and suffering and other items the court deems appropriate. \n\nIt would be advisable for Wells Fargo to call XXXX XXXX and work out a resolution as this is a serious matter and will be best settled amongst Wells Fargo and XXXX XXXX. Failure to make me whole as mentioned will result in the authorities and media being brought in. We will target but not limited to those agencies and agents named in the media and on the court cases. As for the media we will reach out to those who have a history of following Wells Fargo and XXXX XXXX crimes as they are the most up to speed and familiar with your crimes and reporting on them which will speed up the process of getting this out to the public I will also put out a request for other victims to come forward so we may present the list to the authorities mentioned throughout this report and to look into a civil case that will go alongside of any cases the authorities bring. Best scenario and least costly financially and on the public courts of opinion is to make me whole otherwise this is not going away! \n\nReporting Wells Fargo XXXX transaction induced fraud / authorized fraud crimes in the amounts of : {$540.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), {$2000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), {$2400.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and {$2800.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and two XXXX bank wires from my Wells Fargo account to XXXX XXXX  of {$21000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and {$62000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nNote : This report includes XXXX Wire Transfers made from my Wells Fargo accounts to XXXX  XXXX  accounts at the direction of the same bad actors money mule ecosystem team performing the scam to defraud me. These wires were done due to being over the allowed XXXX amounts!","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-30T20:22:05.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"23456","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13250517","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-04-30T19:44:01.000Z","state":"VA","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":["Until these bankers GO TO PRISON this will continue so all that read this need to help get the word out and demand justice does not stop at fines but also must include PRISON time for the convicted criminal bankers as fines obviously are not deterring the Bankers to <em>engage</em> in crimes."]},"sort":[6.212943,"13250517"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8300450","_score":6.154292,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/3023 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case number : XXXX Regarding : Wells Fargo Case : XXXX Acct. ending in : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Complaints Management Office XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, SD XXXX Subject : Serious Noncompliance and Dishonorable Regulations Performed Dear Wells Fargo, I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the lack of resolution regarding the fraudulent transactions conducted by Wells Fargo employees on XX/XX/2023, without my authorization or knowledge. Despite my relentless efforts, which include contacting your company twelve times and engaging with executives, customer service representatives, complaints departments, and management, my issue remains unresolved.\n\nSummarized Current State of Affairs : 1. Wells Fargo Service : Provided detailed information regarding the fraudulent transactions committed by Wells Fargo employees, no concrete action has been taken. The evidence, including recorded phone conversations, clearly demonstrates unprofessional communication and falsification of records by your employees. \n\n2. Formal Complaint : The unsatisfactory and unethical treatment received from Wells Fargo customer service, claims, and executives. It has been three months since the complaint was filed, ( four months total ) and there has been no progress in refunding the unauthorized withdrawal of {$1000.00} from my account. \n\n3. Representative Contact : Wells Fargo acted in bad faith and violated regulations continuously. I have reported this case, along with the unresolved complaints, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). \n\n4. Legal Consideration : I have sought advice from attorneys specializing in consumer protection law and forensic accountants with expertise in illegal activities. If not resolved they will assess the merits of potential legal actions, considering the late fees, disruptions to my life, XXXX rights, and the cessation of healthcare, medication and treatment services resulting from the closure of my accounts and fraudulent withdrawals performed by Wells Fargo Company. \n\nDespite multiple attempts to address my concerns, no satisfactory research or resolution has been provided. I have attached a faxed affidavit, which was sent on XX/XX/2023, as advised on the letter sent XX/XX/2023. The affidavit was notarized and sent to the fax number ( XXXX ) provided : sent by XXXX XXXX, the Personal Banker, at Wells Fargo ( attached original document that was submitted on XX/XX/2023 ). Emails have also been sent the the Wells Fargo XXXX team ( XXXX XXXX ). I have also attached the fax receipt for the unsuccessful attempts to send the affidavit to an alternate fax number provided by XXXX XXXX sent on XX/XX/2023 and XX/XX/2023 as this fax number is offline and they lost all my documents somehow.. \n\nWells Fargo 's failure to reissue the unauthorized check, despite receiving the affidavit nine times, threXXXX different ways is inexcusable. This negligence has had severe consequences for me, including financial hardship during the holiday season ( XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2023 ), missed doctor appointments, damage to my credit report, and the inability to pay for essential expenses such as medication, rent, auto expenses, insurance, and cellular services. As a XXXX individual with numerous medical conditions, including four life-threatening illnesses, Long haul Covid-19, with twenty prescriptions your actions have caused significant hardships to my mental, emotional, and physical well-being. \n\nIt is evident that Wells Fargo has not demonstrated a commitment to inclusivity, fair treatment, or adherence to federal and state laws and regulations. Discrimination on various grounds has been observed throughout this process. I demand immediate and comprehensive resolution to this matter. The case must be reopened, the unauthorized check reissued, and the funds restored to my account. Additionally, I expect full compensation for the damages I have suffered, including the financial losses, emotional distress, medical issues arising, and other hardships caused by Wells Fargo 's actions. \n\nFailure to address this issue promptly and satisfactorily will leave me no choice but to pursue all available legal avenues to seek justice and hold Wells Fargo accountable for its misconduct. I anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and a prompt response outlining the actions you will take to rectify this situation. \n\nYours sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX, XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Dear Wells Fargo XXXX In Texas, as in many other jurisdictions, unauthorized withdrawals and the submission of checks without proper authorization is considered unlawful or fraudulent activities. These actions violate state and federal laws related to banking, fraud, and consumer protection. \n\nIt is challenging to comprehend how a company could engage in unethical practices such as withholding an individual 's financial information, illegally transferring funds without proper authorization, and neglecting to inform clients about the withdrawal of their funds. Additionally, the involvement of eleven individuals in falsifying documents, whether in preparation or transmission, adds a level of unprofessionalism that surpasses reasonable expectations. \n\nI received the affidavit in question without having initiated any corresponding tasks, as Wells Fargo executed a fraudulent withdrawal of funds from my account, subsequently issuing a check without my authorization. This check, bearing number XXXX and valued at {$1000.00}, was neither received nor authorized by me, and I was not notified of its issuance. Consequently, I find myself entangled in this situation for the past four months, during which eleven distinct employees have displayed varying degrees of dishonesty, inadequate training, carelessness, and unprofessional conduct. \nThe fore mentioned affidavit was transmitted via fax on a Friday from a Wells Fargo branch in Texas to the number XXXX formally assert that I neither received nor solicited the original check, as Wells Fargo engaged in fraudulent activities by illicitly dispatching check number XXXX, dated XX/XX/2023, in the amount of {$1000.00}, without obtaining my consent. \nWells Fargo conducted an unauthorized withdrawal of {$1000.00} from my account ending in XXXX, subsequently issuing check number XXXX on XX/XX/2023, without apprising me of the transaction. \nUpon contacting Wells Fargo in XXXX, I was initially informed that my account was in a negative balance, with subsequent discussions revealing an admission to the unauthorized withdrawal. To my surprise, I was informed that there was no obligation on their part to notify me of such actions. \nIn XXXX, I communicated with Wells Fargo, wherein they acknowledged an unauthorized withdrawal but asserted that they were not obligated to notify me of such actions. \nSubsequently, in XXXX, upon contacting Wells Fargo, I was informed that the initial check would be canceled, and a replacement check would be issued. However, in a subsequent conversation in the same month, after updating my address, I was notified that no check had been dispatched. \nFurther communication with Wells Fargo in XXXX revealed that an affidavit would be sent for my signature. \nUpon reaching out to Wells Fargo in XXXX, I was surprised to learn that there was no record of my knowledge regarding the affidavit. Subsequent inquiries within the same month yielded conflicting information, with one representative asserting that no affidavit had been submitted, while another claimed that the affidavit had been sent, signed, notarized, and faxed. \nIn a subsequent interaction with Wells Fargo in XXXX, I was informed that the previously mentioned fax had not been received and was advised to contact another department. \nContinuing the correspondence with Wells Fargo in XXXX, I was told that the individual who denied any continuing the correspondence with Wells Fargo in XXXX, I was told that the individual who denied any knowledge of the affidavit possesses pertinent information. \n\nImpact on My Life and Well-Being Due to Financial Complications My life and overall well-being have been significantly compromised and disrupted by a series of unfortunate events. Firstly, I find myself in a XXXX and unemployed state, battling the long-term effects of Covid-19. This has resulted in a multitude of health issues, requiring a staggering twenty-two prescriptions and numerous hospitalizations and surgeries.\n\nUnfortunately, the past three months have been particularly challenging due to an unlawful financial intrusion by Wells Fargo. They wrongfully withdraw my funds and subsequently misplaced them, leaving me in a state of emotional and mental distress. The repercussions of this financial ordeal have been far-reaching. The time and energy I should have devoted to critical doctor visits, surgeries, medical appointments, and securing necessary medications and support have been diverted toward resolving this financial crisis. As a result, my health has deteriorated further, exacerbating my overall well-being. \n\nWells Fargo 's prolonged withholding of my only available funds, spanning a period of XXXX months, has left me unable to meet basic needs such as purchasing food, paying rent, covering my car payment, electricity bills, cell phone expenses, and health insurance premiums. Consequently, my financial resources have become grossly inadequate, leading to a cascade of negative consequences. The unauthorized withdrawals from my account by Wells Fargo have resulted in insufficient funds, causing multiple non-sufficient fund ( NSF ) incidents. These incidents have significantly impacted my credit score, which has plummeted by more than fifty points in just one month. Moreover, Wells Fargo 's abrupt closure of my checking and business accounts, despite my decade-long patronage, has disrupted all direct deposits. With a hold placed on my checks until after the new year, I face imminent loss of my apartment, car, and the accumulation of numerous late fees and notices. \n\nAs the holiday season unfolds, the domino effect triggered by Wells Fargo 's actions has left me on the brink of losing everything I have worked tirelessly for. Presently, I find myself thus far, {$5000.00} in late fees, nsf charges, and notices accumulating in financial obligations, due to an unauthorized withholding of {$1000.00} from my Wells Fargo account in XX/XX/2023 causing a domino effect, constituting fraudulent activity performed by Wells Fargo. In summary, the compounding consequences of Wells Fargo 's actions have had a severe impact on my life and overall well-being. The financial turmoil they have caused has not only disrupted my immediate circumstances but has also jeopardized my long-term stability and prospects for a secure future. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Texas, XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX UNETHICAL COMPANY CREATES CITIZEN HARDSHIPS In regard to : Accounts Fraudulently Hacked Dishonesty Facts, Unprofessional Communication, Unreliable Investigation and Unethical Procedures. \n\nCurrently Thus Far : Wells Fargo Service : provided details regarding the fraudulent transactions as a result of Wells Fargo employees. \nDocument : A record of eight interactions with Wells Fargo employees, of dates, emails, and summaries of conversations. \nFormal Complaint : An unsatisfactory resolution through customer service, claims departments, and executives failure for three months and a formal complaint was submitted. \n\nRepresentative Contact : Wells Fargo acted in bad faith, violated regulations. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) handles complaints. \nLegal Consideration : An attorney specializing in consumer protection law. Providing guidance, assessing merits, as potential legal actions may be taken if not resolved with a comprehensive plan of action. \n\nSubmitted Affidavit In Branch Hello Wells Fargo, I am writing to bring to your attention the professional, educational, and personal challenges faced as a result of the financial difficulties I have encountered, particularly in regard to my relationship with Wells Fargo. Over the past few months, the cumulative effect of late fees, reconnections, new connections, loss of items, missed appointments, doctor visits, and medical procedures has been devastating. \n\nAs an individual with a XXXX and no current source of income, the last XXXX dollars in my account was withheld by Wells Fargo for an extended period, rendering me unable to meet essential financial obligations : such as rent, auto payments, utilities, communication device, and necessary medical appointments. The financial strain has also led to a decline in my credit score, dropping XXXX points in the month of XXXX, as the problem is still not solved. Unfortunately, the situation has worsened in XXXX. Due to the exhaustion of available funds caused by Wells Fargo 's actions, I have experienced multiple instances of insufficient funds and subsequent disconnection of my checking and savings accounts. Regrettably, I have lost my apartment, my means of transportation, my cell phone, and my overall health has significantly declined. I am currently seeking shelter to keep warm, with limited access to medical care and prescriptions due to this domino financial effect. \n\nMoreover, the consequences of these financial hardships have extended beyond the immediate financial implications. The inability to process direct deposits has resulted in further late fees and financial difficulties with various payees. The domino effect created by these circumstances has caused immense emotional, financial, and physical stress in my life. Additionally, the cyberattack has resulted in fraudulent activities and disruptions to my banking and financial accounts. \nWells Fargo froze, and closed accounts ( checking, business, and credit card accounts ). \nXXXX XXXX suffered a loss and late fees XXXX XXXX XXXX 's account impacted by a loss XXXX late fees Bridge crest Financial, auto loss of down payment due to accounts closed XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Apart ), late fees and loss Wells Fargo account has insufficient funds, Financial losses : XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX dollars, late fees ). \nAffected credit score negatively, resulting in a drop of XXXX points on XXXX. \n\nAt present, I am left with no choice but to request that you take these circumstances into serious consideration. If necessary, I may be forced to seek legal representation to address the pain, suffering, and bad faith that Wells Fargo 's actions have caused, as well as the hardships I have endured. It is my hope that we can find a resolution that acknowledges the immense challenges I have faced and works toward rectifying this situation. I kindly request a prompt response and a comprehensive plan of action to address the financial burdens imposed upon me. I believe that by resolving these matters, we can alleviate the undue stress that has plagued my life and restore a sense of stability and security. Thank you for your attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-07T21:48:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"75254","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8300450","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-02-07T21:24:02.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is challenging to comprehend how a company could <em>engage</em> in unethical practices such as withholding an individual 's financial information, illegally transferring funds without <em>proper</em> authorization, and neglecting to inform clients about the withdrawal of their funds. Additionally, the involvement of eleven individuals in falsifying documents, whether in preparation or transmission, adds a level of unprofessionalism that surpasses reasonable expectations."]},"sort":[6.154292,"8300450"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15868025","_score":6.0573726,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX  Claim No. XXXX Response to Denial, Correction of Factual and Legal Errors, and Request for Reconsideration. \n\nDate : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX First American Title Insurance Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter regarding a claim for a property : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX. First American Title Insurance Company. \n\nI must point out several critical errors made and the avoidance of liability by First American Title Insurance Company on their analysis and the basis for denial, after I requested that First American reconsider its position in light of the following legal and factual clarifications. \n\nI ) First American wrote XXXX letters which I will provide. The letters contains many errors. \nXXXX. Incorrect Attribution of Foreclosure to the XXXX The letters suggests that the litigation and foreclosure were actions taken by the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) \" due to unpaid condominium assessments ''. \n\nThis is factually incorrect. The foreclosure action was initiated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  as Trustee for the Certificateholders of XXXX XXXX, not the HOA. The HOA did not foreclose on the property. \n\nThe error is due to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) who acquired the property before judicial confirmation of the foreclosure sale, which is a direct violation of Illinois law. Under 735 ILCS 5/15-1508, title can not pass to any purchaserincluding the VAuntil the court enters an order confirming the sale. Any transfer prior to confirmation is void ab initio and does not extinguish my rights as owner [ XXXX ]. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Address the Void Sale and Chain of Title Defect The letters do not address the fact that the VAs acquisition of the property occurred before judicial confirmation, rendering the sale void. This is a fundamental defect in the chain of title. All subsequent conveyances, including the subsequent sale of the property to XXXX XXXX, are void if the initial sale was not properly confirmed. \n\nThe omission of this issue undermines the validity of your denial and fails to engage with the core defect that triggers coverage under the XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ]. \n\nHow to Demonstrate the Void Nature of the Foreclosure Sale : Legal Framework : Illinois law is clear that title does not pass until the court confirms the sale. Any transfer before confirmation is void [ XXXX ]. \n\nEvidence : I have provided, and can further supplement, the foreclosure docket, court orders, and title records showing the date of the sheriffs sale, the VAs acquisition, and the later date of judicial confirmation. \n\nRequest : Please address this legal defect directly, not merely by reference to policy exclusions. \n\nXXXX. Misapplication of Policy Exclusions First American Title Insurance relied on Exclusions XXXX ( a ) and XXXX ( d ) to deny coverage, asserting that the defects were created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant or attached or created subsequent to Date of Policy. \n\nThese exclusions do not apply to involuntary acts or procedural defects imposed by third parties, such as a void foreclosure sale or wrongful acquisition by the VA. Illinois courts have held that involuntary or fraudulent acts that defeat the insureds title are not excluded under these provisions. \n\nThe foreclosure and subsequent VA acquisition were not voluntary acts or ordinary post-policy events, but rather illegal clouds on title that the policy is designed to protect against [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. \n\nChallenging First Americans Reliance on Policy Exclusions : XXXX XXXX ( a ) does not apply to involuntary or void acts imposed by third parties. \nExclusion XXXX ( d ) does not bar coverage for void or fraudulent post-policy events that defeat the insureds title. \n\nIllinois law and standard XXXX XXXX XXXX practice require a fact-specific inquiry into whether the loss was caused by a covered risk, not merely the timing of the event [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. \n\nXXXX. Incomplete Investigation First American Title letters do not indicate that First American conducted any investigation into whether a valid foreclosure judgment was entered before the VA acquired the property. The insurers duty is to investigate the validity of the foreclosure process and the chain of title, not simply to rely on the existence of recorded litigation or deeds. A summary denial without such investigation is contrary to Illinois law and standard title insurance practice [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. \n\nXXXX. Insurers Duty to Investigate and Reconstruct Policy Terms Illinois law and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX practice require the insurer to make reasonable efforts to reconstruct policy terms and investigate the claim in good faith when the insured is unable to produce original documentation due to circumstances beyond their control, such as a wrongful eviction. The insurer can not simply deny the claim for lack of original documentation under these circumstances [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. The burden of proof is on them to obtain these documents. \n\nXXXX. Legal Significance of the Evidence Provided I have provided all available records from the XXXX XXXX XXXX of Deed, including documentation of the eviction, the violation of XXXX XXXX, and the appeal process. These records are directly relevant to the question of whether the foreclosure and eviction were valid, and whether the resulting loss of title or value is a covered risk under the policy. The insurer is obligated to review and consider these materials as part of its investigation and to reconstruct the policy terms using its own records, industry standards, and the evidence I have supplied [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. \n\nXXXX. Legal Ownership Rights and Challenge the Chain of Title First American continues to deny coverage, therefore the filing of this claim. \n\nQuiet Title Action : File a quiet title action in Illinois XXXX XXXX to declare the VAs acquisition and all subsequent transfers void, and to restore my ownership. The legal basis is that the foreclosure sale was void ab initio due to the lack of judicial confirmation at the time of transfer, and all subsequent conveyances are likewise void [ XXXX ]. \n\nXXXX XXXX : Seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent further conveyances or encumbrances while the quiet title action is pending. \n\nDamages and Equitable Relief : Include claims for damages resulting from wrongful eviction, property damage, and loss of use. If First American continues to deny coverage without proper investigation, I will consider a claim for bad faith denial under Illinois law [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. \n\nEvidence : I will provide court records, sheriffs sale and confirmation orders, title documents, and any evidence of the VAs premature acquisition, as well as affidavits or expert opinions on Illinois foreclosure procedure and the effect of a void sale. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX VA XXXX XXXX the involvement of VA personnel in the sale and the connection to the current occupant, I am preparing to report these matters to the following agencies : Federal : VA Office of Inspector General ( OIG ), U.S. Office of Special Counsel ( OSC ), and the U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ). \n\n\nXXXX. Additional Evidence and Documentation If there are specific types of evidence or documentation that would further support my claimsuch as additional court records, affidavits, or expert opinions regarding the validity of the foreclosure and evictionplease advise so that I may provide them. I am prepared to supplement the record as needed to demonstrate that the wrongful eviction and related legal violations impact the validity of the foreclosure and the insurers coverage obligations [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]. \n\nXXXX. Request for Reconsideration Given these errors and the controlling law, I have requested that First American : Reopen and reconsider my claim, omitting any reference to XXXX foreclosure as a basis for denial. \n\nInvestigate the existence ( or absence ) of a valid foreclosure judgment and the timing of the VAs acquisition. \n\nAddress the impact of a void sale on the chain of title and coverage under the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nProvide a written response clarifying the steps taken to investigate these issues and the legal basis for any continued reliance on policy exclusions. \n\nIf First American persists in denying the claim without reasonable investigation or reconstruction, this may support a claim for bad faith under Illinois law. I reserve all rights and remedies available to me under the policy and applicable law. \nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt and substantive response. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX References : [ 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 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 VA acquired before confirmation [ XXXX ] Challenge policy exclusions Argue exclusions dont apply to void/involuntary acts ; require fact-specific inquiry [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ] Establish ownership in court File quiet title action, seek injunction, claim damages [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ] Report conflict of interest File with VA OIG, OSC, DOJ, IL XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ] XXXX XXXX to foreclosure, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-11T22:56:08.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"11213","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15868025","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-09-11T22:21:45.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX : <em>Seek</em> a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent further conveyances or encumbrances while the quiet title action is pending. \n\nDamages and Equitable Relief : Include claims for damages resulting from wrongful eviction, property damage, and loss of use. If First American continues to deny coverage without <em>proper</em> investigation, I will consider a claim for bad faith denial under Illinois law [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ]."]},"sort":[6.0573726,"15868025"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13314719","_score":5.77509,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Introduction Nature of the Action : Plaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff ) brings this Complaint against XXXX Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq., XXXX for failure XXXX  comply with industry XXXX XXXX reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that Experian has persistently reported inaccurate XXXX fraudulent information on his credit report XXXX failed XXXX conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes XXXX a prior identity theft report, Experian has continued XXXX report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm XXXX Plaintiffs credit reputation XXXX  financial well-being. \nSummary of Violations : XXXX wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements XXXX  XXXX XXXX guidelines ; XXXX b ) failing XXXX  reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing XXXX provide Plaintiff with the documentation or description of its investigation as required ; and ( d ) effectively performing only cursory, automated investigations that merely parrot furnishers responses, contrary XXXX the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigation caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts XXXX regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described XXXX dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal law consumerfinance.gov. \nPurpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), XXXX seeks XXXX compel Experian XXXX immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file XXXX XXXX ensure full compliance with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Plaintiff further puts Experian on notice that failure to comply within XXXX  days will result in legal action in federal court, where XXXX will seek all available relief, including statutory XXXX punitive damages for Experians willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing XXXX demand direct attention from XXXX compliance XXXX  legal departments. \nJurisdiction and XXXX  Jurisdiction : This XXXX has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, because XXXX claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. XXXX violations of XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) give rise XXXX a private right of action for which XXXX seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \nXXXX : XXXX is proper in this XXXX under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) because XXXX resides in this XXXX XXXX the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. Experian regularly conducts business in this XXXX XXXX maintains substantial contacts here. Experian, as XXXX of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this XXXX XXXX throughout the XXXX XXXX. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this XXXX, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. \nIntradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in XXXX XXXX of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment XXXX  the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. \nParties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, Maryland. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom Experian prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by Experian, which has adversely affected his XXXX XXXX, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. \nDefendant : Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in XXXX XXXX, California. Experian is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports XXXX XXXX parties for monetary fees. Experian does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of Maryland. At all relevant times, Experian acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment XXXX  under Experians supervision XXXX control. \nNon-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt XXXX furnished the information at issue to Experian. These furnishers include, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned XXXX the extent that Experian relied on their information XXXX  responses. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ), these Furnishers have XXXX to investigate XXXX correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. Experians conduct in this case is intertwined with the XXXX failures XXXX correct the false data ; Experians actions effectively facilitated XXXX continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. \nFactual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX  Fraudulent Accounts ( XXXX ) : In XXXX, Plaintiffs identity was stolen by an unknown imposter, who opened at least XXXX credit accounts in Plaintiffs name with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX personal credit card XXXX XXXX business credit account ). These accounts were opened without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent. The imposter accumulated debt on the accounts and then defaulted, resulting in the accounts being reported as delinquent XXXX eventually charged off by XXXX XXXX. Because these accounts were fraudulent, all information related XXXX them on Plaintiffs credit report is inherently false XXXX not attributable to XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXXt Complaint : On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff submitted a formal XXXX XXXXt report XXXX  complaint XXXX Experian ( through the CFPB complaint portal ) regarding the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts. In that complaint ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), Plaintiff invoked FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, which requires consumer reporting agencies XXXX block information resulting from XXXX XXXX within XXXX business days upon receiving proof of XXXX XXXX from the consumer. XXXX provided Experian with the necessary information, including a police report/affidavit attesting XXXX the identity theft, XXXX  requested that Experian block XXXX remove all information pertaining XXXX the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX his credit file. \nExperians Failure XXXX Block Fraudulent Accounts : Despite Plaintiffs proper identity theft notice, Experian failed XXXX block or delete the fraudulent accounts within the mandated time. Experian either did not respond at all within the XXXX-day window or responded inadequately, allowing the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX remain on Plaintiffs credit report beyond XX/XX/XXXX. By not promptly removing these known XXXX XXXX  accounts, Experian violated FCRA XXXX XXXX  allowed patently inaccurate XXXX  damaging information XXXX continue reporting on Plaintiffs credit file. This failure forced XXXX XXXX continue disputing the accounts in subsequent months. \nXX/XX/XXXX Experian Credit Report Obtained : On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff obtained a current copy of his Experian credit report. Upon review, XXXX discovered that Experian was still reporting multiple accounts with serious inaccuracies and FCRA violations, including but not limited to the following : XXXX XXXX Accounts : The fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts from XXXX were still present on the report. They were listed as XXXX accounts ( indicating the creditor wrote off the debt as uncollectible ) yet each account was also showing an active past-due balance. In other words, Experian was reporting these accounts as both charged-off and currently past-due, which is internally inconsistent. A legitimately charged-off account should not continue to carry an accruing past-due amount under standard reporting practices. Experians reporting falsely suggested that XXXX currently owed delinquent balances on these accounts, when in fact the accounts were fraudulent and should have been removed entirely. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account : Experian was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, Experian listed the XXXX account with a status of XXXX XXXX while simultaneously indicating a significant past-due balance remaining. The presence of a past-due balance on an account flagged as a charge-off is contrary to the XXXX XXXX reporting standards XXXX by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a XXXX current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). Experians reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Experian was also reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( XXXX XXXX ) account with inaccurate status. This account was listed as a charge-off with a past-due balance of several XXXX dollars. If this account was legitimately charged off by XXXX XXXX, it should not have a continuing past due amount in the manner a currently delinquent account would. The reporting created a misleading impression that XXXX had an open, delinquent balance with XXXX XXXX, when in reality the account was closed XXXX charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). \nOther Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs Experian report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by Experian to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). For example, at least XXXX collection account continued to be reported even after the underlying debt was resolved, and several accounts did not reflect notices of dispute that XXXX had lodged, which Experian is required to note on the report per XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but XXXX alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his Experian report contain errors that Experian negligently and willfully failed to correct. \nImpact of XXXX XXXX : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging XXXX XXXX. XXXX report portrayed XXXX as significantly more delinquent XXXX high-risk than he actually is. The reporting of multiple active past-due balances on charged-off accounts made Plaintiffs credit profile appear as if he had multiple severe, unresolved delinquencies at the same time. This has adversely affected XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has led XXXX credit denials or offers on far worse terms than XXXX would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means XXXX is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through XXXX. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of Experians reporting failures. \nXX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to Experian : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute XXXX Experian, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal XXXX lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX forwarded XXXX  Experian shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, XXXX clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that Experian was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction XXXX an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a XXXX XXXX violation. XXXX cited XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) XXXX noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. \nPotentially reporting information that was the result of identity theft ( in reference to the XXXX XXXX accounts ) which should have been blocked under XXXX. XXXX reminded Experian of the prior identity theft notice XXXX the continued improper inclusion of those accounts. \nFailing XXXX note previous disputes/investigations. XXXX referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), XXXX Experians reinvestigation obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that Experian must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, XXXX delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. \nPossibly ignoring supporting documentation. Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute results, the identity theft police report, billing statements showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that Experian review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. \nIn this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that Experian : ( a ) delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; ( b ) remove or correct the past-due balance reporting on any charged-off accounts ( including XXXX and XXXX Card ) so that they are accurate or deleted if unverifiable ; and ( c ) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the updated report and an explanation of the investigation results. Plaintiff also indicated that if the accounts were verified as accurate, he wanted to be provided with the method of verification XXXX documentation that Experian relied upon, pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ). \nExperians XXXX XXXX XXXX Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, Experian was legally required XXXX conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within XXXX  days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible XXXX extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the XXXX period ). By law, Experian was required XXXX XXXX notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review XXXX consider all information provided by XXXX, XXXX  then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, Experian was obligated XXXX send XXXX a notice of the results XXXX, upon request, a description of the procedure used XXXX determine the accuracy XXXX completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on Experian XXXX  do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccurate caselaw.findlaw.com. \nExperians Failure XXXX  Timely Respond ( No Response in XXXX Days ) : Experian did not provide any response or results of investigation within the XXXX period following Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX dispute. By law, the reinvestigation should have been completed by approximately XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days after the dispute was communicated to Experian ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due XXXX additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from Experian. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA XXXX. XXXX failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, XXXX conduct forced XXXX to take further action, as described below. \nXX/XX/XXXX Delayed Experian Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly XXXX days after XXXX dispute Experian provided a belated response through the CFPB XXXX, which Experian characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which XXXX received on that date ), Experian claimed XXXX have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes XXXX the report. Experian did not delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; it did not remove the past-due balance fields on the charge-off accounts ; and it did not otherwise correct the misinformation. Essentially, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response indicated that the data was verified as accurate by the source. The response was cursory and failed to specifically address the evidence XXXX had provided. Furthermore, Experian did not provide any of the underlying documents or details of the verification process. It did not, for example, supply Plaintiff with copies of any verification forms or correspondence from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. Nor did it explain how a charge-off with a past-due balance could be deemed accurate under industry standards. \nNo Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving Experians XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that Experian did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), XXXX requested via follow-up communication that Experian provide a detailed description of the procedures used XXXX verify the disputed information, as is his right under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). Experian failed to comply with this request. Experian did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the XXXX was contacted, what information was given XXXX the Furnishers, or what the XXXX replied with. This lack of transparency violated XXXX obligation to provide the method of verification upon request, an important consumer right designed to allow individuals to assess whether the credit bureaus investigation was reasonable. By withholding this information, Experian hindered Plaintiffs ability XXXX further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. \nExperians XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of Experians XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that Experian relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the XXXX electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. XXXX response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, Experian simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. Experian did not exercise any independent judgment or scrutiny, even though the face of the data contained glaring inconsistencies ( such as a charge-off with an ongoing balance ). In essence, Experians investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with. \nFailure to XXXX a Reasonable Reinvestigation : XXXX handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA XXXX ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from XXXX about the charge-off status vs. balance discrepancy, and independently verifying the identity theft claims ( for example, by reviewing the police report, comparing signatures, or examining account application records for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Experian did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held XXXX be inadequate. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX held that simply sending a form XXXX the creditor XXXX doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigation caselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute. \ncaselaw.findlaw.com Experians conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back XXXX  XXXX XXXX the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of XXXX. \nCFPB XXXX of XXXX XXXX Practices : XXXX pattern of handling disputes in this automated, perfunctory manner is not only a violation of the FCRA as interpreted by the courts, but it has also drawn regulatory scrutiny. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed a public enforcement action against Experian, alleging that Experian does not take sufficient steps XXXX... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports. \nconsumerfinance.gov The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stated that Experian was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law. \nconsumerfinance.gov The experiences of the XXXX in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure XXXX genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft XXXX  blatant reporting errors aligns with the XXXX allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that XXXX violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. \nContinued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, Experian continues XXXX report the disputed accounts on Plaintiffs credit file without the corrections requested. The XXXX XXXX accounts remain, still marked as charge-offs with balances ; the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in XXXX system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage XXXX Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, XXXX  researching his rights ), all due XXXX XXXX failure XXXX  meet its statutory obligations. \nExperians Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : XXXX conduct described above was willful. Experian is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject XXXX  prior lawsuits XXXX regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. Experian knew or had reason XXXX  know that the information it was reporting about XXXX was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose XXXX ignore the red flags. Experian also willfully decided XXXX use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft XXXX  multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if Experian claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in XXXX position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation XXXX corrected the errors. XXXX failure XXXX do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm XXXX  XXXX. \nSummary of XXXX XXXX XXXX : As a direct result of Experians actions XXXX  omissions, XXXX has suffered injury including damage XXXX his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offersXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from the ongoing inability XXXX correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced XXXX engage in a protracted struggle XXXX  have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed XXXX prevent. Experians repeated failure XXXX comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had XXXX correct course ( in XXXX XXXX again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief XXXX finally rectify the situation XXXX hold Experian accountable under the law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T15:30:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20904","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13314719","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T15:16:20.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) give rise XXXX a private right of action for which XXXX <em>seeks</em> relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be <em>proper</em> under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \nXXXX : XXXX is <em>proper</em> in this XXXX under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) because XXXX resides in this XXXX XXXX the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. Experian regularly conducts business in this XXXX XXXX maintains substantial contacts here."]},"sort":[5.77509,"13314719"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21861416","_score":5.5541945,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"FORMAL DISPUTE, FRAUD CLAIM, AND NOTICE OF REGULATORY ESCALATION Unauthorized Balance Transfer and Associated Fees I am writing to formally dispute an unauthorized balance transfer in the amount of {$17000.00}, along with an associated transaction fee of {$690.00}, posted to my credit card account ending in XXXX. \n\nThis transaction was not authorized by me, occurred without my knowledge or consent, and took place during a documented XXXX  XXXX attack and coordinated fraud attempt targeting my accounts. \n\nThe funds were transferred to an XXXX XXXX issued by XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ), with which I have no affiliation and no corresponding account on my credit reports ( see XXXX  XXXX ). \n\nI am also formally disputing the handling of my claim, which has now been closed multiple times without explanation, without evidence review, and while I was actively attempting to submit documentation. \n\nXXXX. CONTEXT : COORDINATED FRAUD PATTERN Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, I was subjected to a large-scale spam attack, coinciding with repeated fraudulent attempts to transfer funds to external Apple Card accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX ) This demonstrates a persistent and evolving fraud attempt, not an isolated event. \n\nXXXX. CRITICAL FACTS ESTABLISHING FRAUD I have never conducted a balance transfer of this magnitude and any transfers I have done recently have been to pay off my Bank of America cards I have no relationship with either account ( XXXX or XXXX ) Neither account appears on my credit reports ( Exhibit XXXX ) No new accounts or inquiries exist I have never carried a balance remotely approaching {$17000.00} Most critically : A fraudulent balance transfer attempt on XX/XX/XXXX was made using a newly reissued card that had not been opened, accessed, or activated by me. \nThis confirms the activity was not initiated by me and could not have been authorized through normal account access. \n\nDetailed Chronological Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX Spam Bombing Attack Begins/ Credit Bureaus Frozen On XX/XX/XXXX, I began experiencing what appeared to be a coordinated spam bombing attack against my email account. I was receiving an overwhelming volume of spam emails, which appeared designed to obscure legitimate communications and interfere with my ability to monitor account activity. \n\nIn response, I immediately took protective action and froze my accounts with all three major credit bureaus. \n\nSupporting XXXX  : XXXX  XXXX Credit Bureau Freeze Confirmations XX/XX/XXXX IT Security Review/ Password and Account Protection On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted my IT department and explained that I was being targeted by a spam bombing attack. My IT department advised me on immediate steps to secure my accounts and helped me implement spam filters until the attack stopped. He also permanently deleted the spam emails from XX/XX/XXXX while he was working on my account hence no XX/XX/XXXX email evidence. To be clear, we did a THOROUGH review of the emails to find any suspicious emails or transaction alerts before doing so. \n\nHe can be contacted at : XXXX : XXXX to corroborate. \n\nPer his suggestion, I also checked XXXX Password Checkup and XXXX Password Security to determine whether any of my passwords had been involved in a security breach. Some passwords were flagged as compromised, but based on the available information, my Bank of America credentials were not identified as compromised. \n\nI changed the compromised passwords and continued monitoring my accounts closely. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX IT Security Measures email request XXXX  XXXX Sworn Declaration of whereabouts ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX Unauthorized Balance Transfer Posts WITH NO FRAUD ALERT On XX/XX/XXXX, an unauthorized balance transfer in the amount of {$17000.00} was processed on my Bank of America credit card account ending in XXXX. A related transaction fee of {$690.00} was also charged. \n\nThe transfer was made to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, account ending in XXXX. \nI did not authorize this transaction. I have no affiliation with this XXXX XXXX account, and no such card or corresponding account appears on my credit reports. \n\nMost concerning, I received no fraud alert, text message, email notification, or verification request for this large and highly unusual transaction. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Account Statement Showing Unauthorized Balance Transfer and Transaction Fee XX/XX/XXXX Fraud Alerts Received for Attempted Transfers to XXXX XXXX Ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a text message from Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that a balance transfer had been attempted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, account ending in XXXX. I was taking my children to school at the time. \nXXXX XXXX, I received another fraud notification regarding attempted activity. I responded NO to confirm that I did not authorize the attempted balance transfer. \n\nI immediately called Bank of America to cancel the card and report that I was being targeted. I specifically informed the representative that I had been experiencing spam bombing attacks and that I believed someone was actively attempting to defraud me. \n\nDuring this call, no one informed me that an unauthorized {$17000.00} balance transfer had already been charged the day before, on XX/XX/XXXX, to the same XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX. The representative did not mention any suspicious transactions or connect the XX/XX/XXXX attempted transfer alerts to the XX/XX/XXXX transaction. \n\nThis is one of the most troubling facts : Bank of America sent alerts for attempted transfers on XX/XX/XXXX, but did not send any alert for the larger transfer that actually went through on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSupporting Exhibits : XXXX  XXXX Screenshot of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  Fraud Alert Text Referencing Apple Card Ending in XXXX Exhibit XXXX Screenshot of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  Fraud Alert and NO Response XX/XX/XXXX Unauthorized Charges Discovered / Card Canceled and Reissued On XX/XX/XXXX, I checked my Bank of America accounts and saw that the balance on my card ending in XXXX was over {$20000.00}. \n\nI then discovered two unauthorized charges that had posted on XX/XX/XXXX : {$17000.00} unauthorized balance transfer {$690.00} transaction fee These charges were connected to the unauthorized balance transfer to : Transaction Type : Balance Transfers Offer ID : XXXX Reference number : XXXX Merchant Name : Balance Transfer Apple CA I immediately contacted Bank of America. I explained that I did not authorize the transaction, that I had already reported suspicious activity on XX/XX/XXXX, and that I had been experiencing spam bombing attacks. \nBank of America canceled my card and sent a replacement card. I was told that I would need to complete and return a letter that would be sent to me, and that I needed to return it within 10 days. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Account Snapshot Showing Unauthorized Charges XX/XX/XXXX Credit Reports Reviewed / No Matching Accounts or Balances I logged into my credit reports ( all three bureaus ) to confirm whether any new accounts had been opened in my name. \n\nThe reports showed : No new accounts opened in my name No new inquiries No XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX No XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX No outside credit card balances large enough to justify a balance transfer of this size I have been carrying low balances outside of Bank of America for a long time. Nothing in my credit reports supports or explains a transfer of this amount. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Credit Reports Showing No Matching Apple Card Accounts, No New Accounts, No Inquiries, and No Balances Supporting the Transfer XX/XX/XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report Filed On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission. \n\nThis report was filed because the unauthorized balance transfer, spam bombing attack, and repeated attempted transfers strongly indicated that I was the victim of coordinated identity theft and fraud. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report XX/XX/XXXX Police Report Filed With XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a police report with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAn officer came to my home, and I showed him the information and documentation I had gathered, including the suspicious activity, the spam attack, and the fraudulent balance transfer. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Police Report XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America Claim Closed Before Evidence Was Submitted By XX/XX/XXXX, I had not received the letter in the mail that Bank of America told me would be sent after my XX/XX/XXXX call. I also had not received a temporary credit for the fraudulent transaction that was promised on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI called Bank of America again. The representative placed me on hold for a long time and stated that I should have received my credit by then. \n\nDuring this call, I was told that my claim had been closed, even though I had not submitted my evidence yet and had not received the letter I had been told to expect. \n\nThe representative reopened or reissued the claim and stated that I should receive the letter shortly. She also told me that I would have to return the letter within 10 days of receiving it, not 10 days from the claim date. This was confusing because I had previously been told I had 10 days, but I had not yet received anything that would allow me to submit my documentation properly. \n\nThis was the first point at which it became clear that my claim was being handled inconsistently and possibly closed without a proper review. \n\n\nXX/XX/XXXX New Fraud Attempt on Reissued, Unactivated Card On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another alert regarding an attempted balance transfer. \nThis time, the attempted transfer was for {$17000.00} to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, account ending in XXXX. \n\nThis was especially alarming because the request was made on my newly reissued Bank of America card, which had been issued due to the prior fraud. I had not opened the envelope containing the new card, had not accessed the new card, and had not activated it. \n\nThis is a critical fact. A balance transfer request was attempted on a reissued card that I had not opened or activated. This further confirms that the fraudulent activity was not initiated by me and could not have resulted from my normal use of the card. \n\nFor this attempted transfer, I received both a text alert and an email alert from Bank of America. This contrasts sharply with the XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized transfer, for which I received no alert despite the much larger and successful transaction. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Fraud Alert for Attempted Transfer to XXXX XXXX Ending in XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Immediate Call to BofA / Agent Accuses Me of Liability and Locks Me Out Immediately after receiving the XX/XX/XXXX attempted balance transfer alert, I called Bank of America. \n\nI explained the full situation again, including : The ongoing spam bombing attack The prior unauthorized balance transfer The XX/XX/XXXX attempted fraud alerts The fact that I had already filed a claim The fact that this new attempted transfer was made on a reissued card that had not been opened or activated During this call, the agent told me that my claim had been closed and that I had been found liable for the transfer. \n\nI was horrified. When I asked for details, the agent was rude and told me she could not talk to me. She then locked me out of my accounts and told me I would have no access until I went into a financial center and showed two forms of identification. \n\nThis was deeply distressing because I was calling to report another active fraud attempt, and instead of receiving help, I was locked out of my accounts and accused of being liable for a transaction I did not authorize. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX In-Person Visit to Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX Immediately after being locked out, I went in person to the Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nI worked with XXXX XXXX. \n\nAt the branch : I explained the full fraud situation again I provided two forms of identification I entered my PIN when my debit card was swiped I explained that I had been spam attacked I explained that I had already reported the fraud I explained that the new attempted transfer was made on a reissued card that had not been opened or activated XXXX XXXX eventually called the Bank of America fraud department. \n\nWe spoke with a male fraud department representative who told me that my claim had been closed and that I had been found liable. \n\nI argued that this made no sense because : I had not uploaded all of my evidence I had not received the letter in the mail I had not been given an alternate way to submit documentation I had reported the fraud immediately I had received alerts for related attempted transfers I had no relationship with the XXXX XXXX  accounts involved The latest attempt occurred on a reissued, unactivated card After a very confusing conversation and a very long period of time, the fraud representative stated that he had reopened my claim and unlocked my card so I could access the claim online. \nI checked my phone while still at the branch and confirmed that the claim was accessible again. However, there was no link to upload additional documents. \n\nWhen I pointed this out, the representative placed me on hold again for a long time. He eventually came back and told me that it could take up to 24 hours for the upload link to appear and that I should be able to upload my documentation the next day. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Email to XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I also emailed XXXX to report the fraudulent transfer request and to document that fraud attempts were continuing. \n\nI also changed my Bank of America password online. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Email to XXXX Regarding Fraudulent Transfer Request XX/XX/XXXX Ongoing Spam Bombing Attack Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I continued to experience an active spam bombing attack. \n\nBetween approximately XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX  XXXX, I received : Over 1,600 spam emails to my spam folder Over 30 spam emails that made it into my inbox This was happening at the same time I received the Bank of America notification regarding the attempted balance transfer. \n\nThe spam bombing was ongoing and directly overlapped with the fraud attempt. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Spam Attack Screenshots and Logs Showing XXXX Spam Emails and XXXX Inbox Emails XX/XX/XXXX Claim Closed Again Overnight Despite Being Reopened the Prior Day On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I saw that I had received an email from Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX  the night before stating that my claim had been closed again. \n\nThis was shocking because on XX/XX/XXXX I had spent hours : Calling Bank of America Going in person to the financial center Providing two forms of ID Entering my PIN Speaking with the branch representative Speaking with the fraud department Having the claim reopened Being told I would be able to upload evidence the next day The XX/XX/XXXX email made it appear as if everything that happened on XX/XX/XXXX had never occurred. \n\nAt this point, I felt as though Bank of America was actively preventing me from defending myself against fraud. I had repeatedly attempted to provide evidence, but my claim was closed before I could upload it, reopened only after significant effort, and then closed again overnight before the upload function was made available. \n\nThis sequence made me feel gaslit, mistreated, and obstructed in my attempt to resolve a clearly fraudulent transaction. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Claim Closed Again / Escalation to Supervisor / Continued Obstruction On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, after discovering that my claim had been closed again at XXXX XXXX  the prior evening ( see XXXX  XXXX ), and at XXXX XXXX  ( see XXXX XXXX ) I received an email that stated that a final review was done and my claim was declined! \n\nI immediately called Bank of America again to seek clarification and escalation. \n\nRequest for Supervisor and Escalation During this call, I specifically requested to speak with a fraud claims supervisor. I was transferred to an individual identified as XXXX from XXXX. \n\nI then retold the entire sequence of events once again, including : The spam bombing attack beginning XX/XX/XXXX The unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX balance transfer The XX/XX/XXXX fraud alerts that I declined The fact that I never received a notification for the actual fraudulent transaction The XX/XX/XXXX attempted transfer on a reissued, unactivated card The branch visit where I spent hours verifying my identity and reopening the claim The repeated assurances from multiple Bank of America representatives that : o I would receive a letter o I would receive an upload link to submit evidence o My claim had been reopened o My accounts were secured At this point in the call, I was extremely distressed and crying uncontrollably, as I had now spent weeks attempting to resolve what is clearly a fraudulent transaction and had instead been : Given conflicting and inconsistent information Passed repeatedly between departments Prevented from submitting evidence Locked out of my accounts Told I was liable for a transaction I did not authorize Concerns Expressed During Call I clearly expressed to XXXX that : There has been a complete failure of customer service and fraud protection I do not understand how a fraudulent transaction of this magnitude was approved without alerting me I do not understand how multiple employees are providing contradictory information about the claims process I feel that I am being passed from department to department to avoid resolution I do not understand how a newly issued, unactivated replacement card could immediately be compromised again I do not feel that my finances are safe at Bank of America I further explained that : I have no involvement whatsoever with the fraudulent transaction I have provided and attempted to provide documentation demonstrating this I am being prevented from properly defending myself Response from Fraud Supervisor ( XXXX ) XXXX was professional and empathetic ; however, he confirmed that : My claim had been closed He was unable to confirm whether the claim had actually been reopened the prior day during my in-branch visit This was particularly concerning because I had : Spent hours in person at a branch Verified my identity with two forms of ID and PIN entry Been explicitly told by a fraud representative that everything was being taken care of and the claim was reopened Further Instructions Given XXXX provided me with a phone number for the fraud claim reviewing department and instructed me to call them on Monday, as they were not open at the time of the call. \n\nHe further instructed me that I would need to : Repeat the entire situation again Request that they provide me with a way to submit documentation demonstrating that I am not involved in this fraudulent transaction, as they have been actively trying to accuse me and hold me liable for a crime I did not commit. \n\nResulting Impact and Ongoing Harm At this point, the process had become circular and non-functional. I expressed clearly that : I feel like I am on a hamster wheel, being asked to repeat the same facts over and over without resolution I no longer have confidence that anything I am told by the bank is accurate or reliable I feel that I am being defrauded twice : o First by the individual ( s ) who stole my money o Second by the institution that allowed the transaction and is failing to correct it I also raised fundamental questions that remain unanswered : Why has a basic investigation not determined this was fraud? \nCan the bank not : o Trace where the funds were transferred?\n\no Confirm that the receiving account does not belong to me?\n\no Identify the origin location of the transfer and compare it to my actual location on XX/XX/XXXX? \no Recall or freeze the transferred funds? \n\nNotice of Further Action I informed XXXX that : I am prepared to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission I am prepared to engage legal counsel My husband, XXXX XXXX, and I are prepared to withdraw substantial funds ( approaching $ XXXX combined ) from Bank of America and move our banking and mortgage relationship elsewhere Personal and Professional Impact I also explained the real-world consequences of this failure : I have a scheduled mental wellness retreat in XXXX beginning Sunday through Wednesday ( XX/XX/XXXX ), which is now overshadowed by this unresolved issue Instead of resolution after nearly three weeks, I am now forced to carry this stress into that time To reiterate : I am raising two small children I work in a high-demand executive role as Senior Vice President at Entertainment Media Ventures I have just launched a new company, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, where I serve as XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  I do not have ANY TIME as it is, and Bank of America has wasted dozens of hours of my time, taking away from critical work projects and time with my family Despite this, I have been : Treated dismissively Denied clear answers Prevented from submitting evidence And at times made to feel as though I am being treated as responsible for criminal activity rather than the victim of it Conclusion of XX/XX/XXXX Events At the conclusion of this call, there was still : No resolution No confirmed active claim under proper review No ability to submit evidence No assurance that my accounts are secure This situation is completely unacceptable, and I am demanding immediate resolution. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America Sent at XXXX XXXX  Stating Claim Was Closed Again XX/XX/XXXX Escalation Attempt and Breakdown in Support Process On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Bank of America at XXXX, following prior instructions from a representative identified as XXXX. Upon reaching an agent, I immediately requested to speak with a supervisor due to the ongoing urgency and complexity of my fraud claim. \n\nInstead of being connected to a supervisor, I was transferred multiple times across departments. At each transfer, I was required to restate the full details of my situation. Eventually, I was connected with an individual who I believed to be a supervisor ; however, they appeared unfamiliar with my case and required a full re-explanation. That individual informed me that they had no information on how I could submit supporting evidence for my fraud claim, which directly contradicts prior guidance I had received. \n\nI was then transferred again. After once more explaining the situation, I discovered that I had been routed back to general customer service, rather than a fraud or supervisory team. At this point, after more than an hour on the phone and repeated failed transfers, I became extremely distressed. \nI formally requested that all calls from this date be reviewed and that the conduct of the customer service representatives involved be placed under formal internal review, as the handling of my case was disorganized, inefficient, and wholly inadequate given the seriousness of a fraud claim. The repeated misrouting and lack of procedural knowledge prevented me from submitting critical evidence and materially delayed resolution of my claim. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Failed Fax Attempts and Paid Third-Party Transmission On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to submit my fraud dispute documentation via fax to XXXX, as instructed. Multiple attempts to transmit the documents were unsuccessful and rejected. \nDue to the urgency of ensuring my evidence was received, I paid {$50.00} to send the documents via XXXX  XXXX  ( XXXX ). I received a confirmation indicating that the fax transmission was successful ( see XXXX XXXX ). \n\nTo further ensure delivery, I sent the documents again via an additional fax service ( XXXX  ), and received a second confirmation of successful transmission ( see XXXX  XXXX ). \n\nDespite following all provided instructions and incurring out-of-pocket expenses to do so, I have not received confirmation from Bank of America that my documentation has been properly received or logged into my case file. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Successful Fax Confirmation XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Successful Fax Confirmation XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Conflicting Information, Hostile Interaction, and IP Address Dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Bank of America again and spoke with a representative identified as XXXX ( XXXX  ), who was empathetic and attempted to assist. I was then transferred to an individual named XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, whose conduct was notably unprofessional and dismissive. I am formally requesting that this call be pulled and reviewed, as his behavior materially added to the distress and mishandling of my case. \n\nFollowing this interaction, I was transferred to XXXX, a supervisor, who stated that she would : File internal customer complaints regarding prior interactions Add notes documenting my repeated attempts to submit evidence Keep the fraud claim open until documentation is confirmed received During this call, XXXX stated that the IP address associated with the fraudulent transaction was consistent with my historical usage. \n\nI explicitly dispute this assertion. At the time of the unauthorized transaction, I was physically present at my office in XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, a highly secured facility with verifiable access logs and surveillance records. I am prepared to provide supporting evidence confirming my location. \n\nAdditionally, it is widely recognized that IP addresses can be spoofed or masked, particularly in cases involving coordinated fraud or spam attacks. The presence of a familiar IP address alone does not constitute proof of authorization ( see XXXX  XXXX ). \nXXXX advised that I should also submit my documentation via certified mail, and confirmed that notes would be added to ensure my claim remains open pending receipt and review of my materials. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX FBI.GOV article explaining the prevalence of IP address spoofing and its use in fraudulent activity. \n\nThis article explains that IP addresses can be manipulated, masked, or spoofed by bad actors to make a transaction appear as though it originated from a legitimate user or familiar location. Techniques such as VPN masking, proxy routing, and spoofing tools are commonly used in coordinated fraud and spam attacks. \n\nThe existence of a matching or familiar IP address does not constitute reliable proof of user authorization, particularly in cases involving : Spam or phishing attacks Unauthorized account access Coordinated fraud attempts This exhibit directly challenges Bank of Americas assertion that an IP address consistent with prior usage is sufficient evidence to attribute the transaction to me. It supports the position that additional authentication evidence is required to establish authorization. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Reversal of Temporary Credit and Ongoing Financial Harm On XX/XX/XXXX, I logged into my Bank of America account and observed that the previously issued temporary credit had been removed without prior notice or explanation. \n\nAs a result, my account balance reverted to approximately {$20000.00}, and I am now incurring interest charges on a balance that I continue to dispute as fraudulent. \n\nThis action has caused immediate and ongoing financial harm, including : Accrual of interest on a disputed and unauthorized transaction Significant negative impact on my account standing Additional emotional distress given the unresolved status of my fraud claim At no point prior to the removal of the temporary credit was I provided : A formal determination letter Supporting evidence for denial of my claim Confirmation that my submitted documentation had been received and reviewed Given that my fraud claim remains disputed and under active submission of supporting evidence, the removal of the temporary credit appears premature and procedurally improper. \n\nI am requesting : Immediate reinstatement of the temporary credit pending full investigation Reversal of all interest and fees associated with the disputed transaction A written explanation detailing the basis for removal of the credit Final Notice of Escalation If this matter is not resolved promptly and appropriately, I will have no choice but to escalate this dispute further. This includes filing formal complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and all other relevant regulatory and oversight authorities, as well as pursuing direct legal action against Bank of America. \n\nI am fully prepared to provide the extensive documentation, timeline, and supporting exhibits outlined herein, which clearly demonstrate both the fraudulent nature of this transaction and the banks failure to conduct a reasonable and consistent investigation. I will also seek recovery of all damages incurred, including financial losses, interest charges, and any additional remedies available under applicable law. \n\nI strongly urge Bank of America to take immediate corrective action to resolve this matter before further escalation becomes necessary. \n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of XXXX and the United States of America that the foregoing statements, timeline, and supporting exhibits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. \nI further declare that all documents submitted in support of this claim are authentic and have not been altered, and that this statement is made in good faith in connection with a fraud dispute.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-04T19:03:56.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"90046","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21861416","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-04T18:45:30.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am fully prepared to provide the extensive documentation, timeline, and <em>supporting</em> exhibits outlined herein, which clearly demonstrate both the fraudulent nature of this transaction and the banks failure to conduct a reasonable and consistent investigation. I will also <em>seek</em> recovery of all damages incurred, including financial losses, interest charges, and any additional remedies available under applicable law."]},"sort":[5.5541945,"21861416"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693898","_score":5.50372,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Introduction : Nature of the Action : Plaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff ) brings this Complaint against Defendant TransUnion Consumer Solutions ( TransUnion ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and for failure to comply with industry Metro 2 reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that TransUnion has persistently reported inaccurate and fraudulent information on his credit report and failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes and a prior identity theft report, TransUnion has continued to report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiffs credit reputation and financial well-being.\n\nSummary of Violations : TransUnions wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements and Metro 2 guidelines\n; ( b ) failing to reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing to provide Plaintiff with the documentation or description of its investigation as required ; and ( d ) effectively performing only cursory, automated investigations that merely parrot furnishers responses, contrary to the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigationcaselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts and regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described TransUnions dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal lawconsumerfinance.gov.\n\nPurpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), Plaintiff seeks to compel TransUnion to immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file and to ensure full compliance with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Plaintiff further puts TransUnion on notice that failure to comply within 14 days will result in legal action in federal court, where Plaintiff will seek all available relief, including statutory and punitive damages for TransUnions willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing and demand direct attention from TransUnions compliance and legal departments.\n\nJurisdiction and Venue : Jurisdiction : This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681p and 28 U.S.C. 1331, because Plaintiffs claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnions violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681e ( b ) give rise to a private right of action for which Plaintiff seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367. \nXXXX  : XXXX is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because Plaintiff resides in this District and the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. TransUnion regularly conducts business in this District and maintains substantial contacts here. TransUnion, as one of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and throughout the United States. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this District, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. \n\nIntradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in the county of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment to the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. \n\nParties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom TransUnion prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by TransUnion, which has adversely affected his credit score, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. \n\nDefendant : TransUnion Consumer Solutions/TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a publicly traded company in XXXX under the ticker symbol XXXX on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion principal place of business is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties for monetary fees. TransUnion does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of XXXX. At all relevant times, TransUnion acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment and under TransUnions supervision and control. \n\nNon-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt collectors furnished the information at issue to TransUnion. These furnishers include, XXXXXXXX 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  ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned to the extent that TransUnion relied on their information and responses. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), these Furnishers have duties to investigate and correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. TransUnions conduct in this case is intertwined with the Furnishers failures to correct the false data ; TransUnions actions effectively facilitated and continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. \n\nFactual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : TransUnion was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, TransUnion listed the XXXX account with a status of XXXX XXXX while simultaneously indicating a significant past-due balance remaining. The presence of a past-due balance on an account flagged as a charge-off is contrary to the Metro 2 reporting standards set by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Metro 2 guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a zero current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). TransUnions reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion was also reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( XXXX XXXX ) account with inaccurate status. This account was listed as a charge-off with a past-due balance of several XXXX dollars. If this account was legitimately charged off by XXXX XXXX, it should not have a continuing past due amount in the manner a currently delinquent account would. The reporting created a misleading impression that XXXX had an open, delinquent balance with XXXX XXXX, when in reality the account was closed and charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). \n\nOther Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs TransUnion report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by TransUnion to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). For example, at least XXXX collection account continued to be reported even after the underlying debt was resolved, and several accounts did not reflect notices of dispute that Plaintiff had lodged, which TransUnion is required to note on the report per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but Plaintiff alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his TransUnion report contain errors that TransUnion negligently and willfully failed to correct. \n\nImpact of Inaccurate Reporting : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging to Plaintiff. TransUnions report portrayed Plaintiff as significantly more delinquent and high-risk than he actually is. The reporting of multiple active past-due balances on charged-off accounts made Plaintiffs credit profile appear as if he had multiple severe, unresolved delinquencies at the same time. This has adversely affected Plaintiffs credit score and has led to credit denials or offers on far worse terms than Plaintiff would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means Plaintiff is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through 1681c-2. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of TransUnions reporting failures. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to TransUnion : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute to TransUnion, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal to lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, and forwarded to TransUnion shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, Plaintiff clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that TransUnion was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction and an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a Metro 2 violation. Plaintiff cited 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) and noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. \n\nFailing to note previous disputes/investigations. Plaintiff referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), and TransUnions reinvestigation obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that TransUnion must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, and delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. \n\nPossibly ignoring supporting documentation. Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute results, the identity theft police report, billing statements showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that TransUnion review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. \n\nIn this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that TransUnion : ( a ) delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; ( b ) remove or correct the past-due balance reporting on any charged-off accounts ( including XXXX and XXXX Card ) and several other accounts so that they are accurate or deleted if unverifiable ; and ( c ) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the updated report and an explanation of the investigation results. Plaintiff also indicated that if the accounts were verified as accurate, he wanted to be provided with the method of verification and documentation that TransUnion relied upon, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ).\n\nTransUnions Statutory Duty to Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, TransUnion was legally required to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible 15-day extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the 30-day period ). By law, TransUnion was required to : notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review and consider all information provided by Plaintiff, and then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, TransUnion was obligated to send Plaintiff a notice of the results and, upon request, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 7 ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on TransUnion to do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccuratecaselaw.findlaw.com. \n\nTransUnions Failure to Timely Respond ( No Response in 30 Days ) : TransUnion did not provide any response or results of investigation within the 30-day period following Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX dispute. By law, the reinvestigation should have been completed by approximately XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days after the dispute was communicated to TransUnion ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due to additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from TransUnion. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA 1681i. TransUnions failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, TransUnions conduct forced Plaintiff to take further action, as described below. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Delayed TransUnion Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly 51 days after Plaintiffs dispute TransUnion provided a belated response through the CFPB portal, which TransUnion characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which Plaintiff received on that date ), TransUnion claimed to have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes to the report. TransUnion did not delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; it did not remove the past-due balance fields on the charge-off accounts ; and it did not otherwise correct the misinformation. Essentially, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response indicated that the data was verified as accurate by the source. The response was cursory and failed to specifically address the evidence Plaintiff had provided. Furthermore, TransUnion did not provide any of the underlying documents or details of the verification process. It did not, for example, supply Plaintiff with copies of any verification forms or correspondence from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. Nor did it explain how a charge-off with a past-due balance could be deemed accurate under industry standards. \n\nNo Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that TransUnion did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), Plaintiff requested via follow-up communication that TransUnion provide a detailed description of the procedures used to verify the disputed information, as is his right under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ). TransUnion failed to comply with this request. TransUnion did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the Furnishers was contacted, what information was given to the Furnishers, or what the Furnishers replied with. This lack of transparency violated TransUnions obligation to provide the method of verification upon request, an important consumer right designed to allow individuals to assess whether the credit bureaus investigation was reasonable. By withholding this information, TransUnion hindered Plaintiffs ability to further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. \n\nTransUnions XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that TransUnion relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the Furnishers electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. TransUnions response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, TransUnion simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and other accounts and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. TransUnion did not exercise any independent judgment or scrutiny, even though the face of the data contained glaring inconsistencies ( such as a charge-off with an ongoing balance ). In essence, TransUnions investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : TransUnions handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from Furnishers about the charge-off status vs. balance discrepancy, and independently verifying the identity theft claims ( for example, by reviewing the police report, comparing signatures, or examining account application records for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. TransUnion did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held to be inadequate. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX held that simply sending a form to the creditor and doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigationcaselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trans Union Corp. held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back to Plaintiff and the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of 1681i. \n\nCFPB Recognition of XXXX XXXX Practices : XXXX pattern of handling disputes in this automated, perfunctory manner is not only a violation of the FCRA as interpreted by the courts, but it has also drawn regulatory scrutiny. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed a public enforcement action against XXXX, alleging that XXXX  does not take sufficient steps to ... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports.consumerfinance.gov The CFPBs Director XXXX XXXX stated that TransUnion was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law.consumerfinance.gov The experiences of the Plaintiff in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure to genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft and blatant reporting errors aligns with the CFPBs allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that TransUnions violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. \n\nContinued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, TransUnion continues to report the disputed accounts on Plaintiffs credit file without the corrections requested. The XXXX XXXX accounts remain, still marked as charge-offs with balances ; the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and other accounts, still show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in TransUnions system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage to Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, and researching his rights ), all due to TransUnions failure to meet its statutory obligations. \nTransUnions Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : TransUnions conduct described above was willful. TransUnion is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject to prior lawsuits and regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. TransUnion knew or had reason to know that the information it was reporting about Plaintiff was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose to ignore the red flags. TransUnion also willfully decided to use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft and multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if TransUnion claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in TransUnions position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation and corrected the errors. TransUnions failure to do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm to Plaintiff.\n\nSummary of Harm to Plaintiff : As a direct result of TransUnions actions and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered injury including damage to his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offers, and emotional distress ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) from the ongoing inability to correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced to engage in a protracted struggle to have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed to prevent. TransUnions repeated failure to comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had to correct course ( in XXXX and again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief to finally rectify the situation and hold TransUnion accountable under the law. \n\nCase Law and Regulatory Support XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX emphasized that a credit bureaus reinvestigation of disputed information must be more than a token effort. The court held that the FCRA imposes grave responsibilities on agencies like TransUnion to ensure accuracy, and that a so-called reinvestigation that merely rubber-stamps the furnishers response is inadequatecaselaw.findlaw.com. In that case, Trans Union had verified an obviously fraudulent account by simply asking the creditor, which the court found could violate 1681i. The XXXX XXXX flatly stated that the burden of investigation is on the consumer reporting agency, not the consumer : the statute places the burden of reinvestigation squarely on the [ CRA ] a reinvestigation that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions handling of Plaintiffs disputes in the present case mirrors the disapproved conduct in XXXX. Like TransUnion in this case, TransUnion simply parroted information from its subscribers ( creditors ) without carrying out its own duty to verify accuracy. Under XXXX, such conduct violates 1681is requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX confronted a scenario involving fraudulent accounts ( opened by the plaintiffs son ) where the CRA relied solely on form requests to creditors during reinvestigation. The court held this was insufficient. It famously wrote : In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers.caselaw.findlaw.com The XXXX XXXX reasoned that if a consumer has alerted the agency that the source of information ( the creditor ) maXXXX be unreliable ( for example, due to fraud or error ), the agency is obliged to go beyond the initial source and conduct a more searching inquirylaw.justia.com. It rejected the argument that a consumer should have to resolve the fraud directly with the creditor, affirming that the onus is on the CRA to resolve it caselaw.findlaw.com. In the case at bar, Plaintiff explicitly alerted TransUnion that the accounts were products of fraud or error ( and even provided an identity theft report and other evidence ). Under XXXX, TransUnion was duty-bound to do more than just ask the creditor via e-OSCAR. TransUnions failure to take any additional steps ( such as actually examining the police report or contacting Plaintiff for more info ) runs afoul of the standard set in XXXX. The lessons of XXXX reinforce that TransUnions simplistic approach to Plaintiffs dispute was legally deficient. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX  XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the plaintiffs disputed an erroneous credit item multiple times, and XXXX  repeatedly verified it by relying on the creditors word, despite evidence the information was wrong. The court denied summary judgment for XXXX, holding that 1681i ( a ) can require a CRA to go beyond the original source of information when the circumstances indicate the source may be XXXX. The decision noted that the majority of courts have found that a CRA must verify the accuracy of its initial source in certain situations, rather than blindly trusting the XXXX. In XXXX, the plaintiffs had even provided court documents to prove the account was resolved, yet XXXX  still took the creditors outdated report at face valuelaw.justia.com. The court cited XXXX and XXXX approvingly in concluding that whether a CRAs investigation was reasonable is usually a question for the XXXX, especially when the consumer has provided information calling the creditors data into XXXX. XXXX applies squarely here : XXXX gave TransUnion ample reason to doubt the furnishers ( pointing out obvious errors and fraud ), but TransUnion persisted in relying exclusively on those furnishers. Just as in XXXX, a fact-finder could ( and likely would ) determine that TransUnion willfully failed to conduct a proper reinvestigation. The case law thus supports Plaintiffs position that TransUnions conduct was unlawful under the FCRA. \n\nRecent CFPB Enforcement CFPB XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ) : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus lawsuit against Experian, filed in XX/XX/XXXX, serves as powerful confirmation by the nations chief consumer credit regulator that XXXX  dispute-handling practices violate the FCRA.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance Standards : While not codified in the FCRA, the Metro 2 format guidelines ( issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) are the industry standard for reporting credit information. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. .Metro 2 Compliance Standards. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. By maintaining past-due balances on charged-off accounts, TransUnion deviated from Metro 2 standards, further highlighting the unreasonableness of its procedures. Additionally, Metro 2 provides specialized codes for indicating disputed information and identity theft accounts ; TransUnion either did not use these codes or ignored them in Plaintiffs case. The result was tradelines that were blatantly non-compliant with industry norms, reinforcing that TransUnions conduct was not just a technical error but a failure of the very controls meant to ensure data integrity.\n\nWillfulness and Pattern of Non-Compliance : The above legal authorities show that TransUnion has been on notice for decades that it must do more than superficial checks when consumers dispute information, especially in cases of fraud or obvious error. XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ) have long been part of FCRA jurisprudence, and the FCRA statute itself is clear in its language. The fact that in XXXX TransUnion is still engaging in conduct that those cases found unlawful strongly suggests willfulness. TransUnions pattern of ignoring both court guidance and regulatory warnings ( like those from the CFPB and prior state Attorneys General settlements ) constitutes reckless disregard of consumers rights, which meets the standard for willfulness under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ). Consequently, not only is TransUnion liable to Plaintiff for actual damages ( and/or statutory damages ), but an award of punitive damages is warranted to deter TransUnion from continuing its unlawful practices and to punish it for this pattern of misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-24T15:47:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20904","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13693898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-24T15:20:03.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnions violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681e ( b ) give rise to a private right of action for which Plaintiff <em>seeks</em> relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be <em>proper</em> under 28 U.S.C. 1367. \nXXXX  : XXXX is <em>proper</em> in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because Plaintiff resides in this District and the events giving rise to the claims occurred here."]},"sort":[5.50372,"13693898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11017912","_score":5.262571,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, LA XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) TransUnion LLC Subject : Formal Demand for Compliance with FCRA Section 605B Request for Immediate Blocking of Unauthorized Accounts and Information To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this follow-up complaint to demand immediate action to address the unauthorized accounts and personal information reported on my credit file. I previously filed a complaint with the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX, accompanied by supporting documentation, including my FTC Identity Theft Report, identification, and proof of address. Despite complying with federal requirements, the credit reporting agencies have failed to block the disputed information within four business days, as mandated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2. The reporting agencies have alleged that my proof of address and identification were not valid or legible. This has unjustly delayed the statutory requirement to block the fraudulent and unauthorized information within four business days.\n\nTo rectify this issue, I am resubmitting a clear, legible image of my government-issued drivers license and my W-2 formboth acceptable forms of proof of address under federal law and credit bureau guidelines. \nViolation of FCRA and Legal Mandates The FCRA is unequivocal in its requirements regarding identity theft claims : 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( Blocking of Information Resulting from Identity Theft ) : Credit reporting agencies must block disputed information within four ( 4 ) business days after receiving appropriate documentation, including proof of identity, a police report or FTC Identity Theft Report, and the consumers dispute. \nFailure to comply with this requirement constitutes a direct violation of federal law, subjecting the credit reporting agencies to severe legal and regulatory penalties. By refusing to block the disputed accounts and prolonging the dispute process, the credit bureaus are engaging in willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n, which imposes liability for actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages for willful violations.\n\n2. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Accuracy of Reporting : Credit bureaus are required to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in reporting. Continuing to report unauthorized information without blocking it within the statutory timeframe constitutes gross negligence and a breach of consumer rights.\n\n3. FTC Enforcement and Penalties : Under Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act, failing to block unauthorized information or prolonging dispute resolution processes may be deemed an unfair and deceptive practice, warranting regulatory enforcement and penalties. \nFormal Demand for Action The following accounts, personal information, and inquiries must be immediately blocked, as per FCRA Section 605B : Unauthorized Accounts : 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 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 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 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Status : Open with negative remarks Only Authorized Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX LA XXXX XXXX Unauthorized Phone Numbers : Phone numbers are also reporting erroneously and need to be removed. \nSevere Legal Implications of Noncompliance Failure to block the disputed information within four business days, as required by law, constitutes a breach of federal consumer protection statutes. The credit reporting agencies and any involved companies will be held accountable under the following statutes : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) : Emphasized that credit reporting agencies must ensure accuracy and act promptly to correct inaccuracies. \nXXXX. FTC v. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Established the obligation of credit bureaus to comply with consumer protection laws and avoid harm to consumers through unfair practices. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : XXXX that reporting agencies can not furnish consumer reports without explicit permissible purpose or consumer consent. \nImmediate Demands 1. Immediate Blocking of All Disputed Information : The listed accounts, names, addresses, and phone numbers must be blocked from my credit report within four ( 4 ) business days of receipt of this letter, as mandated by FCRA Section 605B. \n2. Written Confirmation of Compliance : The credit bureaus must provide written confirmation of the blocked information, ensuring it is no longer accessible to creditors or other third parties.\n\n3. Assurance of Adherence to Federal Law : Credit reporting agencies must implement internal compliance measures to ensure timely responses to identity theft claims, preventing future violations of FCRA Section 605B.\n\nNotice of Escalation Should the credit bureaus fail to comply with these demands, I will escalate this matter to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and pursue all available legal remedies, including claims for damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n for willful noncompliance. Your failure to act promptly and ethically in resolving this matter continues to harm my financial reputation and well-being. As a victim of fraud and unauthorized reporting, I demand justice and immediate corrective action. \nthe actions and severe violations committed by XXXX, the supervisor at TransUnion, who grossly mishandled my consumer dispute and further disregarded my constitutional rights. XXXX has been directly complicit in failing to comply with federal laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) regulations, and his actions have resulted in a violation of my due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.\n\n1. Violation of My Right to Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, I am entitled to due process of law, including a fair and impartial review of my case. XXXX  conduct during the call not only deprived me of this process but also unlawfully blocked my right to an informed decision regarding my consumer report. Denying me a clear understanding of the reasoning behind TransUnions rejection of my FTC report was a denial of my constitutional right to fair treatment and the protection of my property rightsmy financial reputation and credit. \nXXXX. Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) XXXX, in his capacity as a supervisor, failed to uphold his duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( FCRA Section 605B ), which mandates that credit reporting agencies block disputed information resulting from identity theft or fraud within four business days. Instead, he obstructed my efforts to resolve my credit report dispute by providing no clear explanation for why my FTC report was not processed and blocked in accordance with the law. This inaction is a willful disregard of my legal rights, and TransUnions failure to comply with these statutory obligations is a direct violation of the FCRA. \nXXXX. Fraudulent Intent and Misrepresentation XXXX refusal to engage in a meaningful conversation and instead directing me to research solutions on my own is not only an insult but a clear misrepresentation of TransUnions obligations under the FTC Act and 15 U.S.C. 1681b. His behavior in avoiding his responsibility to properly address my concerns constitutes an act of fraud, as it perpetuates false and misleading information about my financial standing by continuing to report unverifiable and unauthorized information on my credit report. \n4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Bad Faith By failing to follow federal guidelines and providing me with no clarity, XXXX acted in bad faith. TransUnion, as a credit reporting agency, has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the consumer. XXXX actions breached that duty, and his failure to respect my rights and process my dispute according to the law further constitutes gross negligence and deliberate misconduct on TransUnions part. \n5. Violation of Constitutional Rights In addition to the violations outlined above, XXXX actions also infringe upon my First Amendment rights. By refusing to properly address my dispute, he not only blocked my access to remedies but also denied me the opportunity to fully exercise my rights under the FCRA. XXXX effectively prevented me from rectifying inaccurate and unauthorized information that directly harmed my reputation and financial well-being. \n6. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ) The actions of XXXX and TransUnion reflect systemic issues within the organization. By knowingly allowing inaccurate and unauthorized information to persist on my credit report for an extended period, TransUnion may be engaging in unlawful practices under 18 U.S.C. 1962 ( c ), as such actions involve the continuous manipulation of consumer data for profit. This constitutes a violation of the RICO Act, exposing TransUnion to civil penalties and criminal charges. \n7. Penalties and Consequences for Noncompliance Failure to act upon this formal complaint will result in the following severe consequences : FCRA Violations : Statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation, along with punitive damages, attorney fees, and actual damages for harm caused. \nFTC Enforcement : Violations of the FTC Act could subject TransUnion to civil penalties, fines, and injunctions. RICO Violations : If TransUnion is found guilty of operating as part of an illegal enterprise, they could be subjected to treble damages ( three times the amount of damages suffered ), criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison, and substantial financial fines. \nConstitutional Violations : The breach of constitutional rights may also expose TransUnion and XXXX to damages under civil rights laws for depriving me of my due process and equal protection rights. \nConclusion TransUnions actions, including the behavior of XXXX, When I spoke to him XX/XX/XXXX around the time of XXXX XXXX represent gross violations of federal law, consumer rights, and constitutional protections. I demand immediate action to rectify these issues, which include blocking all unauthorized and inaccurate information on my credit report, providing written confirmation of compliance, and ensuring that such violations do not continue. If these demands are not met within four business days, I will escalate this matter by filing formal complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), and seeking legal action for damages. \nTransUnion must take immediate corrective action, or I will pursue all available legal remedies and further regulatory action to ensure that my rights as a consumer are upheld. \nthe egregious and unlawful behavior exhibited by XXXX, the supervisor at TransUnion, whose actions have not only furthered my distress but have also violated my constitutional rights and consumer protections under federal law. XXXX behavior and his blatant disregard for consumer rights represent a disturbing failure on TransUnions part to uphold its obligations to consumers, demonstrating a lack of respect for both federal law and basic decency. \nXXXX. Blatant Disregard for Consumer Rights and Federal Law XXXX refusal to address my concerns or provide proper clarification about my FTC Identity Theft Report and the accompanying documents is not just a failure of customer serviceit is a gross violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( FCRA Section 605B ). This provision mandates that credit reporting agencies must block fraudulent information within four ( 4 ) business days of receiving a valid dispute. XXXX persistent obstruction and refusal to comply with these federal requirements go beyond mere incompetencethey reflect an intentional pattern of negligence aimed at disregarding consumer rights for profit. \n2. Gross Misrepresentation and Misleading Consumer Practices Throughout our interaction, XXXX consistently misrepresented my case, providing no real solutions and instead attempting to deflect responsibility by making dismissive statements. He repeatedly told me to research the issue myself and did not engage in any meaningful dialogue about the legitimate documents I had already submitted. This behavior not only undermines my consumer rights but also demonstrates an alarming level of arrogance, as XXXX took no responsibility for his departments failure to comply with 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( FCRA Section 604A ). His actions misrepresented my financial situation and subjected me to unnecessary harm, continuing to report unauthorized information on my credit report without valid justification. \n3. Violation of Constitutional Rights XXXX  actions also violate my First Amendment rights by hindering my ability to challenge and dispute the false and harmful information on my credit report. By actively obstructing my attempts to rectify these issues and denying me the legal right to resolve the dispute through the proper channels, XXXX actions represent an infringement on my right to due process and access to legal remedies. Denying a consumer the ability to correct unauthorized information on their credit report is not just an administrative failureits an attack on their constitutional rights. \n4. Emotional Distress and Financial Harm XXXX behavior has caused me substantial emotional distress and severe financial harm. He knowingly failed to help address the inaccuracies that have been defaming my credit report, leaving me with a tarnished reputation that affects my ability to secure loans, housing, and even employment. His refusal to acknowledge and rectify the harm done by his inaction is a clear demonstration of how TransUnion has failed to protect consumers like me. \n5. The Need for Immediate Accountability XXXX actions have cost me time, money, and peace of mind. By acting in bad faith and obstructing my access to a fair and just dispute process, he has compounded my victimization. He has intentionally and willfully defied federal consumer protections and engaged in practices that can only be described as predatory and malicious. It is clear that XXXX has shown gross negligence and intentional misconduct, and such behavior must not be tolerated by TransUnion or any other organization tasked with protecting consumer rights. \nXXXX. Severe Consequences for XXXX and TransUnion In light of XXXX repeated failures, it is my firm belief that his actions warrant serious consequences. His conduct not only breaches the FCRA and FTC regulations but also falls under 18 U.S.C. 894 ( extortionate credit practices ). By willfully denying my rights, XXXX is enabling illegal practices and prolonging a fraudulent situation for financial gain. This behavior is not only unethicalit is illegal. \nShould TransUnion fail to take appropriate action, I will pursue every available legal remedy, including escalating this matter to the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), and seeking civil penalties under RICO, along with filing for punitive damages for the distress caused.\n\n7. Final Demands I demand that : Immediate action be taken to block the fraudulent information on my credit report within four ( 4 ) business days as required by FCRA Section 605B. \nA full internal investigation into XXXX conduct be initiated, with a review of whether his actions are consistent with the expectations of professional conduct and compliance with federal law. \nThe accounts and information on my credit report be corrected and permanently removed. \nIf this issue is not resolved promptly and to my satisfaction, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter further and take all necessary legal actions against TransUnion and XXXX personally for their illegal and unethical conduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-03T05:25:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70791","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11017912","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-03T05:12:51.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Violation of Constitutional Rights XXXX  actions also violate my First Amendment rights by hindering my ability to <em>challenge</em> and dispute the false and harmful information on my credit report. By actively obstructing my attempts to rectify these issues and denying me the legal right to resolve the dispute through the <em>proper</em> channels, XXXX actions represent an infringement on my right to due process and access to legal remedies."]},"sort":[5.262571,"11017912"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8750998","_score":4.832009,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To whom it may concern, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Tennessee XXXX I am writing to formally address the matter of account deletion or blocking following a data breach or unauthorized inquiries, as stipulated in FCRA Section 605B [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] and FCRA Section 604 [ 15 U.S.C. 1681b ]. I respectfully dispute the accounts on my consumer credit report mentioned below, asserting that they are a direct result of a data breach or fraud.\n\nI request concrete and verifiable evidence, including my signature or electronic signature, to substantiate these actions. This letter represents my personal initiative, and I kindly urge you to scrutinize its contents. These actions transpired without my authorization, thereby infringing upon my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically under Section 605B [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] and Section 604 [ 15 U.S.C. 1681b ]. My attempts to engage with the involved companies revealed an absence of proper validation or original proof for their reporting actions.\n\nListed below are the Personal Information that are being challenged Incorrect Previous Address : - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TN, XXXX This item was fraudulently misrepresented - I will alert the issuing bank of this fraud unless you agree in writing to remove the debt immediately. - Please verify if this belongs to me. \nXXXX - XXXX I hereby submit a formal request for the cessation of reporting regarding the aforementioned account. Kindly provide documented evidence attesting to the accuracy and validation of all details, encompassing notations, dates, balances, compliance condition code ( s ), and any pertinent elements within the Metro 2 compliance segment and field ( s ). Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\n15 U.S.C 1681 No Written Consent to share this information. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I hope\n\nthis message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention that the data presented above does not appear to have undergone certification to meet the required reporting standards. Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that this information might be incomplete, outdated, or lacking proper support. Therefore, I kindly request that any inaccurate or unsupported material be expeditiously removed from this page. I wish to draw your esteemed attention to the discrepancy denoted by Account Type Details as documented within the report. It has come to my notice that the information pertaining to this account displays potential inaccuracies and deviations from the well-\ndefined reporting norms set forth by the XXXX. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation to ascertain the veracity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requisites. Should these criteria not be met, I respectfully request the removal of my profile. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of Account Status ( XXXX ) : XXXX is not in compliance with the required reporting standards.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that the Payment Status ( XXXX ) : Coll/Chargeoff reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies shows significant inconsistencies. It appears that the reporting may be in violation of the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and there is a possibility that it may be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or non-compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. This field is indicative of potential issues with reporting accuracy and compliance standards, which is a matter of concern. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could urgently investigate this issue and take the necessary steps to address any discrepancies and ensure that reporting practices are in full compliance with the established standards.\n\nI wish to draw your attention to the presence of an issue denoted as \" Credit Limit ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} '' within the provided report. It has come to my notice that the data associated with this account appears to deviate from established reporting standards set forth by the XXXX, displaying inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation of this matter, with the objective of ensuring its veracity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requisites. Should these concerns not be addressed satisfactorily, I respectfully request the removal of my profile.\n\nI wish to draw your attention to the issue of inconsistency in the reporting of High Credit ( XXXX ) : {$19000.00} across the XXXX credit reporting agencies. It has come to my attention that this reporting may be non-compliant with the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards and may be untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or not confirmed to be compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. This field suggests that this item of reporting may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards, which is a matter of grave concern. Therefore, I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter to ensure that such discrepancies are addressed and that future reporting is accurate, complete, and compliant with the established standards.\n\nI kindly wish to draw your attention to the presence of an error in the Past Due ( XXXX ) : XXXX as stated in the report. It has come to my attention that the data pertaining to this account may be erroneous or incoherent with the prescribed reporting norms set forth by the XXXX. I humbly request that you reconsider the matter and provide substantiation for the accuracy, completeness ( within the designated timeframe ), verification, and adherence to all relevant requirements. Should these conditions not be met, I would greatly appreciate the removal of my profile.\n\nI kindly wish to draw your attention to the matter of Monthly Payment ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} as identified within the report. It has come to my notice that the data pertaining to this account exhibits discrepancies that appear to deviate from the established reporting standards of the XXXX. I humbly request your reconsideration of this information, with a view towards ensuring its fidelity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requirements. Should this not align with the prescribed standards, I would respectfully request the removal of my profile from consideration. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nI would like to draw your attention to the Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX that has been reported in the document. It seems that the data pertaining to this account may be erroneous or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of the XXXX. Therefore, I kindly request you to conduct a thorough review of the information and ensure its veracity, accuracy, completeness ( within the designated timeframe ), verification, and compliance with all relevant requirements. If any discrepancies are found, I would appreciate it if you could promptly rectify them. In the event that this can not be accomplished, I respectfully request that my profile be removed from the system.\n\nI would like to draw your attention to the Date Last Active ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX mentioned in the report. It seems that the data pertaining to this account is not in line with the established reporting standards of the XXXX, and may be considered inaccurate or inconsistent. I kindly request you to reevaluate the information and provide evidence of its authenticity, accuracy, completeness ( within the specified timeframe ), verification, and compliance with all relevant requirements. If these criteria are not met, I respectfully request that my profile be removed.\n\nI kindly wish to draw your attention to the matter concerning the Date of Last Payment ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX as indicated in the report. It has come to my attention that the data associated with this account exhibits a notable inconsistency when measured against the established reporting standards upheld by the XXXX. I humbly request that you undertake a thorough review of this data to confirm its accuracy, completeness, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all requisite criteria. Should it transpire that these aforementioned criteria are not met, I would respectfully request the removal of my profile. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of Date Opened ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX may not be deemed valid, accurate, or compliant with the established standards of the credit reporting industry. It is imperative to acknowledge that the XXXX has specifically outlined that any deviations from these standards can result in deficient reporting, requiring the removal of the claim ( s ) until they are proven to be compliant with legal requirements. We must stress that this action must be taken, even if there is evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence in reporting practices. Therefore, any deviations, as mentioned below, must be regarded as adequate grounds to remove the claim ( s ) from reporting.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that there is no confirmation that the reporting of XXXX  Year History : XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX is valid, accurate, or compliant with credit reporting industry standards. We would like to highlight that XXXX has explicitly stated that any deviation from these standards results in deficient reporting, and any claims must be removed until they can be proven to be compliant with legal requirements. We must emphasize that this action must be taken regardless of any evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence in reporting practices. As such, any deviations, such as those listed below, should be considered sufficient grounds for the removal of the claim ( s ) from reporting. We would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, ensuring adherence to all ethical and legal reporting practices.\n\nThis is not mine - this belonged to a patient who is no longer living. Remove this from my report.\n\nI express my profound disappointment regarding the absence of documented proof of compliance with reporting standards and consumer laws. This deficiency is significant, and I demand the immediate deletion of the flawed report. Failure to comply will result in legal action for non-compliance with the relevant legal requirements. It is crucial for us to have comprehensive knowledge through accurate documentation, ensuring we are well-prepared to address potential issues in the future.\n\nI am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the presence of Account Type Details in the report. Regrettably, the data associated with this account raises serious doubts about its accuracy and alignment with the established reporting standards of the XXXX. I respectfully request a thorough reevaluation to ensure the utmost veracity, precision, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requirements. Should these concerns remain unaddressed, I kindly request the immediate removal of my profile. \nIt is with a deep sense of disappointment and concern that I must lodge a complaint regarding the reported information concerning High Credit ( XXXX ) : {$15000.00}, which appears to be in violation of the necessary standards for compliant reporting. Therefore, I challenge the reporter 's privilege to report this claim unless they can provide evidence of their confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and processes, which includes full adherence to the Credit Reporting Industry 's mandatory Metro 2 Format standards. It is quite evident that one or more of the reported Last Verified information is deficient in its reporting proficiency, which is unacceptable. Consequently, it is imperative that the reporter incontrovertibly demonstrates the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of their reporting with the industry standards. Failing to do so will have severe consequences, as it undermines the credibility and trustworthiness of the reporting industry.\n\nI would like to draw your attention to the presence of Monthly Payment ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} as highlighted in the report. Regrettably, the data pertaining to this account seems to deviate from the established reporting standards set forth by the XXXX, indicating potential inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Therefore, I kindly request you to thoroughly reassess the information and provide irrefutable evidence of its authenticity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requirements. If these conditions can not be met, I must insist on the removal of my profile from the records.\n\nI wish to express my concern and disappointment regarding the presence of Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX in the report. Regrettably, it has come to my attention that the data related to this account does not align with the established reporting standards of the XXXX, raising concerns about its accuracy and compliance. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation to ensure the veracity, precision, timeliness, verification, and full compliance with all necessary requirements. In the event that these expectations are not met, I respectfully request the removal of my profile.\n\nI must respectfully bring to your attention the matter of Date Last Active ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX as reported in the document. Regrettably, it has come to my attention that the data concerning this account significantly departs from the well-established reporting standards mandated by the XXXX, causing me deep disappointment and frustration. I earnestly request a thorough reevaluation of this situation to validate its veracity, accuracy, completeness ( within the designated timeframe ), verification, and adherence to all prescribed requirements. In the unfortunate event that these criteria are not met, I insist on the immediate removal of my profile.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reported Date of Last Payment ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX can not be confirmed to be valid, accurate, or compliant with the established standards of the credit reporting industry. We express our disappointment and concern that any deviation from these standards would result in deficient reporting, which is completely unacceptable. We must remind you that the XXXX has clearly stated that such deviations require the immediate removal of the claim ( s ) until they can be proven to be compliant with all legal requirements. We expect nothing less than adherence to ethical and lawful reporting practices, regardless of any evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence. We urge you to consider any deviations, such as those listed below, as sufficient grounds for removing the claim ( s ) from reporting, and to take prompt and decisive action to ensure compliance with industry standards.\n\nIt is with a sense of disappointment and concern that I must lodge a complaint regarding the reported information concerning Date Opened ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX. It appears that the information provided deviates from the necessary standards for compliant reporting, which is unacceptable. Therefore, I am challenging the reporter 's privilege to report this claim unless they can demonstrate their confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and processes, which must include full adherence to the Credit Reporting Industry 's mandatory Metro 2 Format standards. It is evident that one or more of the reported Last Verified information is deficient in terms of reporting proficiency. It is crucial that the reporter incontrovertibly proves the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of their reporting with the industry standards. This situation requires a prompt resolution to ensure that the trust and integrity of the reporting process are maintained.\n\nI feel compelled to draw your attention to the presence of XXXX  Year History : XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX within the report, which has left me deeply disappointed and somewhat frustrated. It has come to my attention that the data associated with this account falls short of the rigorous reporting standards stipulated by the XXXX, displaying disconcerting inaccuracies and inconsistencies. In a respectful yet assertive manner, I urge a thorough reevaluation of this matter to establish its veracity, precision, timeliness, verification, and adherence to all mandated criteria. If these expectations are not met, I must insist on the prompt removal of my profile.\n\n15 U.S.C 1681 No Written Consent to share this information. \nXXXX - XXXX I would like to respectfully remind you once again to immediately remove any unproven or inadequately supported claims from your reporting, whether they are listed above or below. As a data reporting provider, it is imperative that you meet the minimum criteria required to report with the conditional privilege to do so. Failure to do so raises doubts about the validity of any and all claims that you make.\n\nI dispute the reportability of any claim that you fail to prove conclusively, particularly concerning the mandatory Metro 2 Compliance standards. These standards, as laid out by the XXXX in their nearly annual XXXX, are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the data. Any deviation from these standards poses a significant risk to the data 's integrity, and thus, I urge you to adhere to the requisite reporting practices to be deemed certifiably compliant.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the Account Type Details that has been reported across the three credit reporting agencies is inconsistent. It is our understanding that this reporting appears to be non-compliant with the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards, which is concerning. Additionally, we believe that this may be untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or not confirmed to be compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. Given the gravity of the situation, we are concerned that this field suggests that there may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards. We kindly request that this matter be addressed promptly, as it is of utmost importance to us and our clients.\n\nI kindly urge you to thoroughly verify the information in question through your investigation, specifically seeking original creditor documentation bearing my signature. Should no such documentation bearing my signature exist, I respectfully demand the prompt removal of all inquiries and reported accounts from my credit report associated with my Social Security number.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention the inconsistency in the reporting of Payment Status ( XXXX ) : Coll/Chargeoff across the XXXX credit reporting agencies. Upon further examination, this reporting appears to be non-compliant with the established XXXX XXXX reporting standards and raises concerns regarding the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of the reporting. Specifically, this field suggests that this item of reporting may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards. It is imperative that we address this matter with urgency to ensure that the reported information is truthful, accurate, and fully compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting.\n\nI must bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding the Credit Limit ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies. This reporting appears to be inconsistent and not compliant with the established XXXX 's reporting standards. There is a possibility that this reporting may be untrue, inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or non-compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. The discrepancy in this field suggests that this item of reporting may potentially be an issue with reporting accuracy and compliance standards. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter to ensure that all reporting is accurate, complete, and fully compliant with the industry standards.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of High Credit ( XXXX ) : {$11000.00} is not in compliance with the required reporting standards.\n\nI wish to draw your esteemed attention to an issue concerning the Past Due ( XXXX ) : XXXX as documented in the report. It has come to my discerning notice that the data pertaining to this account exhibits potential inaccuracies or deviations from the well-established reporting benchmarks set forth by the XXXX. I humbly request a thorough reevaluation of this matter, with the objective of substantiating its authenticity, precision, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all mandated prerequisites. Should these criteria not be met, I respectfully implore that my profile be expeditiously expunged from the system. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the reporting of Monthly Payment ( XXXX ) : {$0.00} may not be deemed valid, accurate, or compliant with the established standards of the credit reporting industry. It is imperative to acknowledge that the XXXX has specifically outlined that any deviations from these standards can result in deficient reporting, requiring the removal of the claim ( s ) until they are proven to be compliant with legal requirements. We must stress that this action must be taken, even if there is evidence of misapplication, willful ignorance, or negligence in reporting practices. Therefore, any deviations, as mentioned below, must be regarded as adequate grounds to remove the claim ( s ) from reporting.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that the Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX reported across the XXXX credit reporting agencies shows significant inconsistencies. It appears that the reporting may be in violation of the established XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting standards, and there is a possibility that it may be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, unverifiable, and/or non- compliant with all mandates for ethical and lawful reporting. This field is indicative of potential issues with reporting accuracy and compliance standards, which is a matter of concern. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could urgently investigate this issue and take the necessary steps to address any discrepancies and ensure that reporting practices are in full compliance with the established standards.\n\nWe would like to inform you that the reporting of Date Last Active ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX does not meet the necessary standards for reporting, as mandated by regulatory bodies.\n\nI wish to draw your esteemed attention to the discrepancy denoted by Date of Last Payment ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX as documented within the report. It has come to my notice that the information pertaining to this account displays potential inaccuracies and deviations from the well-defined reporting norms set forth by the XXXX. I kindly request a thorough reevaluation to ascertain the veracity, accuracy, timeliness, verification, and compliance with all stipulated requisites. Should these criteria not be met, I respectfully request the removal of my profile. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\n\nThe information provided on Date Opened ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX appears to deviate from the required standards for compliant reporting. Accordingly, I am submitting a complaint challenging the reporter 's ability to report this claim unless they can demonstrate their confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and processes, which includes full compliance with the mandatory Metro 2 Format standards of the Credit Reporting Industry. It is evident that one or more of the Last Verified information provided is deficient in its reporting proficiency. Thus, the reporter must unequivocally prove that their reporting is precise, comprehensive, and compliant with industry standards.\n\nThe previous address mentioned on my report- I never resided here. - Your actions are in violation of FCRA Laws and XXXX Standards. I insist that you remove this erroneous information. \nIncorrect Previous Address - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TN, XXXX I am writing to formally request that you take immediate action to remove an incorrect address from my credit file, which is no longer associated with me and can not be delivered to me by the United States Postal Service. I am deeply concerned about the potential risk of identity fraud that could result from this error, and I would like to remind you that your company may be held liable if this incorrect information remains on my credit report. Furthermore, I must emphasize that I have never resided at this address and therefore, it is imperative that you take steps to delete it from my credit file immediately. It is my understanding that accurate and complete personal information is critical to maintaining the integrity of credit reporting, and I PERSONAL INFORMATION Previous Address ( es ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TN, XXXX would appreciate your assistance in ensuring that my credit report is correct and up-to-date.\n\nI am writing to bring to your attention my awareness of your unlawful practices involving the sending of standardized letters in response to consumer disputes and challenges, regardless of the specific details provided by the individuals. Such practices are in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 5 1681i, which mandates that each dispute and challenge be addressed individually and evaluated on its own merits. It is important to note that the letters I have submitted were created using widely accessible software. Failure to properly process and address my letters would constitute a breach of my rights as a consumer. I must express my concern that such disregard for my rights may be interpreted as a deliberate act, prompting me to seek legal assistance from my attorney to pursue appropriate legal actions\n.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-12T01:18:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"37207","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8750998","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-04-12T01:00:06.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My attempts to <em>engage</em> with the involved companies revealed an absence of <em>proper</em> validation or original proof for their reporting actions.\n\nListed below are the Personal Information that are being <em>challenged</em> Incorrect Previous Address : - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TN, XXXX This item was fraudulently misrepresented - I will alert the issuing bank of this fraud unless you agree in writing to remove the debt immediately. - Please verify if this belongs to me."]},"sort":[4.832009,"8750998"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210103","_score":4.7944202,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am disputing the accuracy, completeness, and permissible purpose of several items appearing on my consumer reports. These include ( XXXX ) derogatory tradelines that lack original documentation or contain inconsistent data fields ; ( XXXX ) paid/closed accounts that still carry XXXX late codes ; ( XXXX ) student-loan transfer histories that appear to double-count delinquencies or carry across negative codes after consolidation or status changes; and ( XXXX ) clusters of hard inquiries where I did not authorize, recognize, or receive the product connected to the inquiry, or where duplicative mortgage/auto pulls appear to be over-counted. I requested a reinvestigation and a full Method of Verification ( MOV ) under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asked for the XXXX XXXX of how the items were verified. I also asked the bureaus and furnishers to identify the specific systems used ( e-OSCAR, ACDV/AUD, third-party data ), the dates/timestamps, the user IDs of verifiers, and the documents reviewed. To date, I have not received adequate documentary proof, and incorrect/unsupported negative data remains. \n\nItems with derogatory status or late codes that I dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) charged off/collection with past-due {$2900.00} The account is reported as derogatory with multiple XXXX late codes and a collection/charge-off characterization. I dispute the status, past-due amount, date of first delinquency ( DOFD ), and whether proper notice/charge-off accounting exists. I requested ( a ) the original cardholder agreement bearing my signature/consent, ( b ) complete monthly statements covering the reported delinquency period, ( c ) charge-off ledger entries, and ( d ) all XXXX records exchanged via e-OSCAR, including the date, time, and fields verified. I have not been provided with this documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported as collection/charge-off with extensive late history * * The file shows a closed account with a large past-due amount and a long string of XXXX late codes. I dispute the reported past-due amount, the charge-off status, the XXXX, and any assignment/ownership transitions. I asked for a chain-of-title ( original creditor to current owner ), forward-flow or purchase agreement pages referencing my alleged account, and billing statements that show how the past-due balance was calculated. No original documents were produced. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX closed XX/XX/XXXX, status paid, but derogatory late codes remain * * Although the trade reflects paid/closed, multiple XXXX late codes continue to appear. I asked the bureaus and the furnisher to reconcile how a paid/closed status can continue to carry derogatory codes when no statements were provided to show the precise dates amounts were actually past due. I also requested a review for possible re-aging or misaligned posting dates. No adequate explanation has been provided. \n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Equifax-only ) XXXX as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * I requested the original statement ( s ) for the alleged late month, payment history screenshots, and any internal notes that justified the derogatory code. I have not received documentation demonstrating accuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) closed as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * Same issue as above : the account is paid/closed yet retains negative coding. I asked for the statement for the alleged late period, payment posting logs, and the specific fields that were verified during prior reinvestigations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lates * * Utilization and payment data are present, but the late codes appear inconsistent with other fields. I asked for detailed billing statements covering the late periods and for confirmation of whether the late codes were verified by manual review or solely by furnisher response via e-OSCAR. \n\nXXXX  XXXX ( multiple entries, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  At least XXXX XXXX XXXX account reflects XXXX late codes while other XXXX XXXX trades show XXXX % utilization. I asked for a complete, date-by-date payment history, the method of verification for each late code, and evidence that names, addresses, and account numbers were matched using more than partial SSN or last-name logging. I have not been provided with documents showing original statements or objective proof. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( line of credit ) single XXXX late * * I requested the statement for the late month, payment logs, timestamps of the due date and the date paid, and any internal corrections. No documentation was produced with timestamps. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  current but shows XXXX XXXX lates * * I dispute the number and timing of the reported lates. I requested the full payment history with posting dates, and a reconciliation between bank/payment confirmations and the dates the furnisher reported to the bureaus. I asked for XXXX XXXX numbers, the verification method, and copies of any correspondence that would show why so many XXXX lates were coded. I have not received adequate evidence. \n\nStudent-loan cluster XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department of Education lines Several XXXX accounts are either open/current or closed/paid/transferred. A subset reflects XXXX and XXXX lates. Many older loans show Paid or Transferred on/around XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, with new XXXX lines opened/continued later. My concerns : Duplicate or propagated late codes : After consolidation/transfer, some delinquency windows appear to follow the loans into new account numbers, effectively double-counting negative history. \n\nMisaligned timelines : Closure dates ( paid/transferred ) sometimes precede or coincide with months allegedly coded late on successor lines. \n\nLack of original documentation : I asked for monthly statements for the reported late periods, a ledger showing application of payments, and consolidation/transfer letters that establish which account carried which delinquency and for how long. \n\nI specifically referenced XXXX account numbers that show XXXX lates and requested formal, document-based verificationrather than unverifiable verified as accurate form letters. I have not been given those records. \n\nMixed/inconsistent data fields ( accuracy and completeness ) Across multiple revolving trades, I see inconsistent utilization, balances, and date last posted entries compared with the presence of late codes or derogatory labels. For example, a trade can display a current balance of {$0.00} or show paid/closed, yet still carry persistent derogatory markers. I asked for the exact system data fields that were verified ( e.g., XXXX codes, payment rating, compliance condition code, XXXX, FCRA status, payment history profile ) and the dates/timestamps when the furnisher updated these fields. \n\nI also requested a full review to ensure there is no furnisher drift, where an old negative code remains attached to a trade after the trade transitions to paid/closed or after it is transferred to a new servicer. No field-level XXXX XXXX has been provided. \n\nHard inquiry clusters and permissible purpose concerns ( FCRA 604 ) There are heavy burst periods of hard inquiries. A significant cluster appears dated XX/XX/XXXX ( including XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, preceding clusters around XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple banks/retailers ), XX/XX/XXXX ( mortgage-related pulls through XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others back into XXXX and XXXX. \n\nMy concerns and actions : I did not complete credit transactions with several of these entities, did not receive loans, and did not knowingly authorize so many duplicative pulls. \n\nSome appear to be aggregators ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) that may have pulled multiple times for the same shopping window. \n\nI asked each bureau to supply permissible purpose codes, the originating system, whether the inquiry should be coded soft vs. hard, and any consumer consent documents ( applications/e-sign logs, IP addresses, or dealership LOAs ). \n\nI requested the bureaus confirm de-duplication logic for auto/mortgage shopping windows so the inquiries are not over-counted or left outside the accepted window. \n\nI have not received documentary proof ( signed applications, LOAs, or IP/e-sign logs ). Where consent or permissible purpose can not be proven, I requested deletion/suppression. \n\nTimeline of what I did ( consumer actions ) Reviewed my consumer reports line-by-line and identified inconsistencies and derogatory items that lacked clear documentary basis.\n\nSubmitted formal disputes to the credit bureaus requesting reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asking for the Method of Verification under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\nListed each tradeline and inquiry and requested the audit trail ( XXXX numbers, timestamps, the exact fields verified, and whether the verification was electronic via e-OSCAR or manual ). \n\nRequested original documentation : signed contracts, monthly statements for alleged late months, payment histories with posting dates, charge-off ledgers, and chain-of-title documents for any debt bought/sold. \n\nHighlighted paid/closed accounts that still carried derogatory codes and asked for removal if the furnisher could not show the specific month ( XXXX ) that were actually XX/XX/XXXX days past due. \n\nFlagged student-loan lines to ensure transfers/consolidations didnt duplicate or propagate delinquencies. \n\nDisputed hard inquiries without recognized authorization and asked for proof of permissible purpose and consumer consent. \n\nDespite these steps, the responses so far have not provided documentary proof, and certain items remain unchanged or only partially corrected. \n\nVerification and documentation I asked for ( and still need ) For each disputed tradeline : The specific method of verification used ( e.g., e-OSCAR ACDV number, manual review, third-party data feed ). \nAll XXXX records, including date/time, operator ID, and fields verified or modified. \nOriginal documentation : signed credit agreements, monthly statements covering alleged late months, proof of any charge-off with accounting entries, and proof of assignment/ownership changes. \nChain of custody for data : systems through which the information traveled, and confirmation that more than basic name + XXXX matching was used. \n\nFor hard inquiries : The inquirys permissible purpose, the originating requester, and copies of any application/consent ( wet-ink or e-signature logs, IP, dealership buyers orders/LOAs ). \nConfirmation of hard vs. soft coding and the rationale ; application of de-duplication for mortgage/auto shopping windows. \n\nFor student loans : Complete payment histories, transfer/consolidation letters, and confirmation that any delinquency window is not duplicated across old/new loan IDs. \nRemoval of negative codes that remain on paid/transferred lines where there is no underlying original statement proof. \n\nWhy this matters under FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum possible accuracy : When the bureaus continue to report lates or charge-offs without original billing statements, charge-off ledgers, or verified DOFDs, the reports do not reflect maximum possible accuracy.\n\n611 ( a ) Reinvestigation duties & Method of Verification : A reinvestigation must be meaningful. A furnishers bare response of verified without documents is not enough, especially when specific dates, amounts, and statuses are challenged.\n\n611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Reinsertions : If any items were removed or suppressed but later reinserted, the bureaus must have a certification from the furnisher and must notify me. I am asking for assurance that, if items are deleted now due to lack of documentation, they will not be reinserted without full compliance.\n\n604 Permissible purpose : Every hard inquiry must have a legitimate purpose and consumer authorization. If the requester can not produce the application or consent, the inquiry should be removed. \n\nConcrete examples illustrating the problems Paid/Closed but negative codes remain : XXXX XXXX  ( closed and paid ) still shows multiple late codes ; XXXXXXXX  ( Equifax-only ) and XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) are similar. These notations depress scores even though the accounts no longer carry balances and the furnishers have not produced the original statements for the alleged late months. \n\nCharged-off/Collection without ledger support : XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) and XXXX XXXX show heavy derogatories and past-due amounts, yet I have not received charge-off accounting or statements proving the amounts and dates. \n\nStudent-loan transfer complexity : Numerous XXXX lines were paid or transferred in XXXX, then continued under different numbers in XXXX. Negative codes look like they migrated or were double-counted. I need a clean mapping showing which months were actually delinquent and proof that the same late window isnt reported twice. \n\nInquiry bursts : On XX/XX/XXXX, there were multiple auto-related pulls XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I did not obtain multiple loans that day. I asked for documentary proof of each requesters authority and to ensure proper deduplication for auto shopping. Similar clusters exist on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), among others. \n\nHarm suffered Continued publication of derogatory data and excessive inquiries has depressed credit scores, increased the cost of credit, and restricted access to favorable terms. \n\nThe presence of unsupported charge-off/collection statuses and lingering late codes on paid/closed accounts creates a misleading picture of creditworthiness. \n\nDuplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-seeking behavior I did not actually engage in. \n\nWhat Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item. \n\nProduce documentary evidencenot just a furnishers verified checkboxsuch as signed contracts, statements, payment ledgers, charge-off documentation, transfer/assignment records, and XXXX logs with timestamps and operator IDs. \n\nDelete or suppress any tradeline or derogatory code that can not be substantiated with original documentation or that is inconsistent with paid/closed status. \n\nCorrect student-loan reporting to prevent the same delinquency window from being counted on both the predecessor and successor loan IDs after consolidation/transfer. Remove any late codes that can not be supported with statements for the exact months alleged. \n\nRemove unauthorized or unvalidated hard inquiries where permissible purpose and consumer consent can not be proven with documentary records. Apply proper deduplication rules to auto/mortgage clusters. \n\nConfirm in writing the steps taken, the documents reviewed, the systems used to verify, and the names/titles ( or IDs ) of the compliance personnel who completed the reinvestigation. \n\nEnsure no reinsertion of any deleted item without full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including timely notice and furnisher certification.\n\nSend corrected reports to recent users of my credit file and provide me with confirmation copies.\n\nWhy a detailed audit trail matters here In past dispute attempts, responses have sometimes stated verified as accurate without identifying the method used, the underlying documents, or the specific fields that were reviewed. When the dispute is granularspecific late months, DOFD, charge-off amounts, transfer timingthe law requires more than a conclusory response. The systems involved ( XXXX, XXXX, or third-party data feeds ) create logs and message IDs that can be produced. These records, along with the furnishers source documents, would either validate the negative data or require its deletion. I am asking for those records now. \n\nClosing I have made a good-faith effort to identify precisely what appears inaccurate or incomplete : charge-off/collection characterizations without ledger support, lingering derogatory codes on paid/closed accounts, potential duplication/propagation of student-loan delinquencies after transfers, and multiple clusters of hard inquiries where I do not recognize authorizations or where deduplication appears not to have been applied. I respectfully request a meaningful reinvestigation, documentary Method of Verification, and prompt correction or deletion of all unverifiable information. Please provide a written summary of your findings, the documents relied upon, and the corrective actions taken.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:24:27.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"71201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210103","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:23:41.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Duplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-<em>seeking</em> behavior I did not actually <em>engage</em> in. \n\nWhat Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item."]},"sort":[4.7944202,"17210103"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210186","_score":4.7864547,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am disputing the accuracy, completeness, and permissible purpose of several items appearing on my consumer reports. These include ( XXXX ) derogatory tradelines that lack original documentation or contain inconsistent data fields ; ( XXXX ) paid/closed accounts that still carry XXXX late codes ; ( XXXX ) student-loan transfer histories that appear to double-count delinquencies or carry across negative codes after consolidation or status changes; and ( XXXX ) clusters of hard inquiries where I did not authorize, recognize, or receive the product connected to the inquiry, or where duplicative mortgage/auto pulls appear to be over-counted. I requested a reinvestigation and a full Method of Verification ( MOV ) under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asked for the XXXX XXXX of how the items were verified. I also asked the bureaus and furnishers to identify the specific systems used ( e-OSCAR, ACDV/AUD, third-party data ), the dates/timestamps, the user IDs of verifiers, and the documents reviewed. To date, I have not received adequate documentary proof, and incorrect/unsupported negative data remains. \n\nItems with derogatory status or late codes that I dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) charged off/collection with past-due {$2900.00} The account is reported as derogatory with multiple XXXX late codes and a collection/charge-off characterization. I dispute the status, past-due amount, date of first delinquency ( DOFD ), and whether proper notice/charge-off accounting exists. I requested ( a ) the original cardholder agreement bearing my signature/consent, ( b ) complete monthly statements covering the reported delinquency period, ( c ) charge-off ledger entries, and ( d ) all XXXX records exchanged via e-OSCAR, including the date, time, and fields verified. I have not been provided with this documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported as collection/charge-off with extensive late history * * The file shows a closed account with a large past-due amount and a long string of XXXX late codes. I dispute the reported past-due amount, the charge-off status, the XXXX, and any assignment/ownership transitions. I asked for a chain-of-title ( original creditor to current owner ), forward-flow or purchase agreement pages referencing my alleged account, and billing statements that show how the past-due balance was calculated. No original documents were produced. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX closed XX/XX/XXXX, status paid, but derogatory late codes remain * * Although the trade reflects paid/closed, multiple XXXX late codes continue to appear. I asked the bureaus and the furnisher to reconcile how a paid/closed status can continue to carry derogatory codes when no statements were provided to show the precise dates amounts were actually past due. I also requested a review for possible re-aging or misaligned posting dates. No adequate explanation has been provided. \n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Equifax-only ) XXXX as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * I requested the original statement ( s ) for the alleged late month, payment history screenshots, and any internal notes that justified the derogatory code. I have not received documentation demonstrating accuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) closed as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * Same issue as above : the account is paid/closed yet retains negative coding. I asked for the statement for the alleged late period, payment posting logs, and the specific fields that were verified during prior reinvestigations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lates * * Utilization and payment data are present, but the late codes appear inconsistent with other fields. I asked for detailed billing statements covering the late periods and for confirmation of whether the late codes were verified by manual review or solely by furnisher response via e-OSCAR. \n\nXXXX  XXXX ( multiple entries, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  At least XXXX XXXX XXXX account reflects XXXX late codes while other XXXX XXXX trades show XXXX % utilization. I asked for a complete, date-by-date payment history, the method of verification for each late code, and evidence that names, addresses, and account numbers were matched using more than partial SSN or last-name logging. I have not been provided with documents showing original statements or objective proof. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( line of credit ) single XXXX late * * I requested the statement for the late month, payment logs, timestamps of the due date and the date paid, and any internal corrections. No documentation was produced with timestamps. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  current but shows XXXX XXXX lates * * I dispute the number and timing of the reported lates. I requested the full payment history with posting dates, and a reconciliation between bank/payment confirmations and the dates the furnisher reported to the bureaus. I asked for XXXX XXXX numbers, the verification method, and copies of any correspondence that would show why so many XXXX lates were coded. I have not received adequate evidence. \n\nStudent-loan cluster XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department of Education lines Several XXXX accounts are either open/current or closed/paid/transferred. A subset reflects XXXX and XXXX lates. Many older loans show Paid or Transferred on/around XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, with new XXXX lines opened/continued later. My concerns : Duplicate or propagated late codes : After consolidation/transfer, some delinquency windows appear to follow the loans into new account numbers, effectively double-counting negative history. \n\nMisaligned timelines : Closure dates ( paid/transferred ) sometimes precede or coincide with months allegedly coded late on successor lines. \n\nLack of original documentation : I asked for monthly statements for the reported late periods, a ledger showing application of payments, and consolidation/transfer letters that establish which account carried which delinquency and for how long. \n\nI specifically referenced XXXX account numbers that show XXXX lates and requested formal, document-based verificationrather than unverifiable verified as accurate form letters. I have not been given those records. \n\nMixed/inconsistent data fields ( accuracy and completeness ) Across multiple revolving trades, I see inconsistent utilization, balances, and date last posted entries compared with the presence of late codes or derogatory labels. For example, a trade can display a current balance of {$0.00} or show paid/closed, yet still carry persistent derogatory markers. I asked for the exact system data fields that were verified ( e.g., XXXX codes, payment rating, compliance condition code, XXXX, FCRA status, payment history profile ) and the dates/timestamps when the furnisher updated these fields. \n\nI also requested a full review to ensure there is no furnisher drift, where an old negative code remains attached to a trade after the trade transitions to paid/closed or after it is transferred to a new servicer. No field-level XXXX XXXX has been provided. \n\nHard inquiry clusters and permissible purpose concerns ( FCRA 604 ) There are heavy burst periods of hard inquiries. A significant cluster appears dated XX/XX/XXXX ( including XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, preceding clusters around XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple banks/retailers ), XX/XX/XXXX ( mortgage-related pulls through XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others back into XXXX and XXXX. \n\nMy concerns and actions : I did not complete credit transactions with several of these entities, did not receive loans, and did not knowingly authorize so many duplicative pulls. \n\nSome appear to be aggregators ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) that may have pulled multiple times for the same shopping window. \n\nI asked each bureau to supply permissible purpose codes, the originating system, whether the inquiry should be coded soft vs. hard, and any consumer consent documents ( applications/e-sign logs, IP addresses, or dealership LOAs ). \n\nI requested the bureaus confirm de-duplication logic for auto/mortgage shopping windows so the inquiries are not over-counted or left outside the accepted window. \n\nI have not received documentary proof ( signed applications, LOAs, or IP/e-sign logs ). Where consent or permissible purpose can not be proven, I requested deletion/suppression. \n\nTimeline of what I did ( consumer actions ) Reviewed my consumer reports line-by-line and identified inconsistencies and derogatory items that lacked clear documentary basis.\n\nSubmitted formal disputes to the credit bureaus requesting reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asking for the Method of Verification under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\nListed each tradeline and inquiry and requested the audit trail ( XXXX numbers, timestamps, the exact fields verified, and whether the verification was electronic via e-OSCAR or manual ). \n\nRequested original documentation : signed contracts, monthly statements for alleged late months, payment histories with posting dates, charge-off ledgers, and chain-of-title documents for any debt bought/sold. \n\nHighlighted paid/closed accounts that still carried derogatory codes and asked for removal if the furnisher could not show the specific month ( XXXX ) that were actually XX/XX/XXXX days past due. \n\nFlagged student-loan lines to ensure transfers/consolidations didnt duplicate or propagate delinquencies. \n\nDisputed hard inquiries without recognized authorization and asked for proof of permissible purpose and consumer consent. \n\nDespite these steps, the responses so far have not provided documentary proof, and certain items remain unchanged or only partially corrected. \n\nVerification and documentation I asked for ( and still need ) For each disputed tradeline : The specific method of verification used ( e.g., e-OSCAR ACDV number, manual review, third-party data feed ). \nAll XXXX records, including date/time, operator ID, and fields verified or modified. \nOriginal documentation : signed credit agreements, monthly statements covering alleged late months, proof of any charge-off with accounting entries, and proof of assignment/ownership changes. \nChain of custody for data : systems through which the information traveled, and confirmation that more than basic name + XXXX matching was used. \n\nFor hard inquiries : The inquirys permissible purpose, the originating requester, and copies of any application/consent ( wet-ink or e-signature logs, IP, dealership buyers orders/LOAs ). \nConfirmation of hard vs. soft coding and the rationale ; application of de-duplication for mortgage/auto shopping windows. \n\nFor student loans : Complete payment histories, transfer/consolidation letters, and confirmation that any delinquency window is not duplicated across old/new loan IDs. \nRemoval of negative codes that remain on paid/transferred lines where there is no underlying original statement proof. \n\nWhy this matters under FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum possible accuracy : When the bureaus continue to report lates or charge-offs without original billing statements, charge-off ledgers, or verified DOFDs, the reports do not reflect maximum possible accuracy.\n\n611 ( a ) Reinvestigation duties & Method of Verification : A reinvestigation must be meaningful. A furnishers bare response of verified without documents is not enough, especially when specific dates, amounts, and statuses are challenged.\n\n611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Reinsertions : If any items were removed or suppressed but later reinserted, the bureaus must have a certification from the furnisher and must notify me. I am asking for assurance that, if items are deleted now due to lack of documentation, they will not be reinserted without full compliance.\n\n604 Permissible purpose : Every hard inquiry must have a legitimate purpose and consumer authorization. If the requester can not produce the application or consent, the inquiry should be removed. \n\nConcrete examples illustrating the problems Paid/Closed but negative codes remain : XXXX XXXX  ( closed and paid ) still shows multiple late codes ; XXXXXXXX  ( Equifax-only ) and XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) are similar. These notations depress scores even though the accounts no longer carry balances and the furnishers have not produced the original statements for the alleged late months. \n\nCharged-off/Collection without ledger support : XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) and XXXX XXXX show heavy derogatories and past-due amounts, yet I have not received charge-off accounting or statements proving the amounts and dates. \n\nStudent-loan transfer complexity : Numerous XXXX lines were paid or transferred in XXXX, then continued under different numbers in XXXX. Negative codes look like they migrated or were double-counted. I need a clean mapping showing which months were actually delinquent and proof that the same late window isnt reported twice. \n\nInquiry bursts : On XX/XX/XXXX, there were multiple auto-related pulls XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I did not obtain multiple loans that day. I asked for documentary proof of each requesters authority and to ensure proper deduplication for auto shopping. Similar clusters exist on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), among others. \n\nHarm suffered Continued publication of derogatory data and excessive inquiries has depressed credit scores, increased the cost of credit, and restricted access to favorable terms. \n\nThe presence of unsupported charge-off/collection statuses and lingering late codes on paid/closed accounts creates a misleading picture of creditworthiness. \n\nDuplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-seeking behavior I did not actually engage in. \n\nWhat Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item. \n\nProduce documentary evidencenot just a furnishers verified checkboxsuch as signed contracts, statements, payment ledgers, charge-off documentation, transfer/assignment records, and XXXX logs with timestamps and operator IDs. \n\nDelete or suppress any tradeline or derogatory code that can not be substantiated with original documentation or that is inconsistent with paid/closed status. \n\nCorrect student-loan reporting to prevent the same delinquency window from being counted on both the predecessor and successor loan IDs after consolidation/transfer. Remove any late codes that can not be supported with statements for the exact months alleged. \n\nRemove unauthorized or unvalidated hard inquiries where permissible purpose and consumer consent can not be proven with documentary records. Apply proper deduplication rules to auto/mortgage clusters. \n\nConfirm in writing the steps taken, the documents reviewed, the systems used to verify, and the names/titles ( or IDs ) of the compliance personnel who completed the reinvestigation. \n\nEnsure no reinsertion of any deleted item without full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including timely notice and furnisher certification.\n\nSend corrected reports to recent users of my credit file and provide me with confirmation copies.\n\nWhy a detailed audit trail matters here In past dispute attempts, responses have sometimes stated verified as accurate without identifying the method used, the underlying documents, or the specific fields that were reviewed. When the dispute is granularspecific late months, DOFD, charge-off amounts, transfer timingthe law requires more than a conclusory response. The systems involved ( XXXX, XXXX, or third-party data feeds ) create logs and message IDs that can be produced. These records, along with the furnishers source documents, would either validate the negative data or require its deletion. I am asking for those records now. \n\nClosing I have made a good-faith effort to identify precisely what appears inaccurate or incomplete : charge-off/collection characterizations without ledger support, lingering derogatory codes on paid/closed accounts, potential duplication/propagation of student-loan delinquencies after transfers, and multiple clusters of hard inquiries where I do not recognize authorizations or where deduplication appears not to have been applied. I respectfully request a meaningful reinvestigation, documentary Method of Verification, and prompt correction or deletion of all unverifiable information. Please provide a written summary of your findings, the documents relied upon, and the corrective actions taken.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:24:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"71201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210186","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:18:38.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Duplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-<em>seeking</em> behavior I did not actually <em>engage</em> in. \n\nWhat Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item."]},"sort":[4.7864547,"17210186"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210102","_score":4.7864547,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am disputing the accuracy, completeness, and permissible purpose of several items appearing on my consumer reports. These include ( XXXX ) derogatory tradelines that lack original documentation or contain inconsistent data fields ; ( XXXX ) paid/closed accounts that still carry XXXX late codes ; ( XXXX ) student-loan transfer histories that appear to double-count delinquencies or carry across negative codes after consolidation or status changes; and ( XXXX ) clusters of hard inquiries where I did not authorize, recognize, or receive the product connected to the inquiry, or where duplicative mortgage/auto pulls appear to be over-counted. I requested a reinvestigation and a full Method of Verification ( MOV ) under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asked for the XXXX XXXX of how the items were verified. I also asked the bureaus and furnishers to identify the specific systems used ( e-OSCAR, ACDV/AUD, third-party data ), the dates/timestamps, the user IDs of verifiers, and the documents reviewed. To date, I have not received adequate documentary proof, and incorrect/unsupported negative data remains. \n\nItems with derogatory status or late codes that I dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) charged off/collection with past-due {$2900.00} The account is reported as derogatory with multiple XXXX late codes and a collection/charge-off characterization. I dispute the status, past-due amount, date of first delinquency ( DOFD ), and whether proper notice/charge-off accounting exists. I requested ( a ) the original cardholder agreement bearing my signature/consent, ( b ) complete monthly statements covering the reported delinquency period, ( c ) charge-off ledger entries, and ( d ) all XXXX records exchanged via e-OSCAR, including the date, time, and fields verified. I have not been provided with this documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported as collection/charge-off with extensive late history * * The file shows a closed account with a large past-due amount and a long string of XXXX late codes. I dispute the reported past-due amount, the charge-off status, the XXXX, and any assignment/ownership transitions. I asked for a chain-of-title ( original creditor to current owner ), forward-flow or purchase agreement pages referencing my alleged account, and billing statements that show how the past-due balance was calculated. No original documents were produced. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX closed XX/XX/XXXX, status paid, but derogatory late codes remain * * Although the trade reflects paid/closed, multiple XXXX late codes continue to appear. I asked the bureaus and the furnisher to reconcile how a paid/closed status can continue to carry derogatory codes when no statements were provided to show the precise dates amounts were actually past due. I also requested a review for possible re-aging or misaligned posting dates. No adequate explanation has been provided. \n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Equifax-only ) XXXX as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * I requested the original statement ( s ) for the alleged late month, payment history screenshots, and any internal notes that justified the derogatory code. I have not received documentation demonstrating accuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) closed as paid, still shows a XXXX late * * Same issue as above : the account is paid/closed yet retains negative coding. I asked for the statement for the alleged late period, payment posting logs, and the specific fields that were verified during prior reinvestigations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lates * * Utilization and payment data are present, but the late codes appear inconsistent with other fields. I asked for detailed billing statements covering the late periods and for confirmation of whether the late codes were verified by manual review or solely by furnisher response via e-OSCAR. \n\nXXXX  XXXX ( multiple entries, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  At least XXXX XXXX XXXX account reflects XXXX late codes while other XXXX XXXX trades show XXXX % utilization. I asked for a complete, date-by-date payment history, the method of verification for each late code, and evidence that names, addresses, and account numbers were matched using more than partial SSN or last-name logging. I have not been provided with documents showing original statements or objective proof. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( line of credit ) single XXXX late * * I requested the statement for the late month, payment logs, timestamps of the due date and the date paid, and any internal corrections. No documentation was produced with timestamps. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  current but shows XXXX XXXX lates * * I dispute the number and timing of the reported lates. I requested the full payment history with posting dates, and a reconciliation between bank/payment confirmations and the dates the furnisher reported to the bureaus. I asked for XXXX XXXX numbers, the verification method, and copies of any correspondence that would show why so many XXXX lates were coded. I have not received adequate evidence. \n\nStudent-loan cluster XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department of Education lines Several XXXX accounts are either open/current or closed/paid/transferred. A subset reflects XXXX and XXXX lates. Many older loans show Paid or Transferred on/around XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, with new XXXX lines opened/continued later. My concerns : Duplicate or propagated late codes : After consolidation/transfer, some delinquency windows appear to follow the loans into new account numbers, effectively double-counting negative history. \n\nMisaligned timelines : Closure dates ( paid/transferred ) sometimes precede or coincide with months allegedly coded late on successor lines. \n\nLack of original documentation : I asked for monthly statements for the reported late periods, a ledger showing application of payments, and consolidation/transfer letters that establish which account carried which delinquency and for how long. \n\nI specifically referenced XXXX account numbers that show XXXX lates and requested formal, document-based verificationrather than unverifiable verified as accurate form letters. I have not been given those records. \n\nMixed/inconsistent data fields ( accuracy and completeness ) Across multiple revolving trades, I see inconsistent utilization, balances, and date last posted entries compared with the presence of late codes or derogatory labels. For example, a trade can display a current balance of {$0.00} or show paid/closed, yet still carry persistent derogatory markers. I asked for the exact system data fields that were verified ( e.g., XXXX codes, payment rating, compliance condition code, XXXX, FCRA status, payment history profile ) and the dates/timestamps when the furnisher updated these fields. \n\nI also requested a full review to ensure there is no furnisher drift, where an old negative code remains attached to a trade after the trade transitions to paid/closed or after it is transferred to a new servicer. No field-level XXXX XXXX has been provided. \n\nHard inquiry clusters and permissible purpose concerns ( FCRA 604 ) There are heavy burst periods of hard inquiries. A significant cluster appears dated XX/XX/XXXX ( including XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, preceding clusters around XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple banks/retailers ), XX/XX/XXXX ( mortgage-related pulls through XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others back into XXXX and XXXX. \n\nMy concerns and actions : I did not complete credit transactions with several of these entities, did not receive loans, and did not knowingly authorize so many duplicative pulls. \n\nSome appear to be aggregators ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) that may have pulled multiple times for the same shopping window. \n\nI asked each bureau to supply permissible purpose codes, the originating system, whether the inquiry should be coded soft vs. hard, and any consumer consent documents ( applications/e-sign logs, IP addresses, or dealership LOAs ). \n\nI requested the bureaus confirm de-duplication logic for auto/mortgage shopping windows so the inquiries are not over-counted or left outside the accepted window. \n\nI have not received documentary proof ( signed applications, LOAs, or IP/e-sign logs ). Where consent or permissible purpose can not be proven, I requested deletion/suppression. \n\nTimeline of what I did ( consumer actions ) Reviewed my consumer reports line-by-line and identified inconsistencies and derogatory items that lacked clear documentary basis.\n\nSubmitted formal disputes to the credit bureaus requesting reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and asking for the Method of Verification under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\nListed each tradeline and inquiry and requested the audit trail ( XXXX numbers, timestamps, the exact fields verified, and whether the verification was electronic via e-OSCAR or manual ). \n\nRequested original documentation : signed contracts, monthly statements for alleged late months, payment histories with posting dates, charge-off ledgers, and chain-of-title documents for any debt bought/sold. \n\nHighlighted paid/closed accounts that still carried derogatory codes and asked for removal if the furnisher could not show the specific month ( XXXX ) that were actually XX/XX/XXXX days past due. \n\nFlagged student-loan lines to ensure transfers/consolidations didnt duplicate or propagate delinquencies. \n\nDisputed hard inquiries without recognized authorization and asked for proof of permissible purpose and consumer consent. \n\nDespite these steps, the responses so far have not provided documentary proof, and certain items remain unchanged or only partially corrected. \n\nVerification and documentation I asked for ( and still need ) For each disputed tradeline : The specific method of verification used ( e.g., e-OSCAR ACDV number, manual review, third-party data feed ). \nAll XXXX records, including date/time, operator ID, and fields verified or modified. \nOriginal documentation : signed credit agreements, monthly statements covering alleged late months, proof of any charge-off with accounting entries, and proof of assignment/ownership changes. \nChain of custody for data : systems through which the information traveled, and confirmation that more than basic name + XXXX matching was used. \n\nFor hard inquiries : The inquirys permissible purpose, the originating requester, and copies of any application/consent ( wet-ink or e-signature logs, IP, dealership buyers orders/LOAs ). \nConfirmation of hard vs. soft coding and the rationale ; application of de-duplication for mortgage/auto shopping windows. \n\nFor student loans : Complete payment histories, transfer/consolidation letters, and confirmation that any delinquency window is not duplicated across old/new loan IDs. \nRemoval of negative codes that remain on paid/transferred lines where there is no underlying original statement proof. \n\nWhy this matters under FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum possible accuracy : When the bureaus continue to report lates or charge-offs without original billing statements, charge-off ledgers, or verified DOFDs, the reports do not reflect maximum possible accuracy.\n\n611 ( a ) Reinvestigation duties & Method of Verification : A reinvestigation must be meaningful. A furnishers bare response of verified without documents is not enough, especially when specific dates, amounts, and statuses are challenged.\n\n611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Reinsertions : If any items were removed or suppressed but later reinserted, the bureaus must have a certification from the furnisher and must notify me. I am asking for assurance that, if items are deleted now due to lack of documentation, they will not be reinserted without full compliance.\n\n604 Permissible purpose : Every hard inquiry must have a legitimate purpose and consumer authorization. If the requester can not produce the application or consent, the inquiry should be removed. \n\nConcrete examples illustrating the problems Paid/Closed but negative codes remain : XXXX XXXX  ( closed and paid ) still shows multiple late codes ; XXXXXXXX  ( Equifax-only ) and XXXX ( TransUnion-only ) are similar. These notations depress scores even though the accounts no longer carry balances and the furnishers have not produced the original statements for the alleged late months. \n\nCharged-off/Collection without ledger support : XXXX XXXX ( Experian-only ) and XXXX XXXX show heavy derogatories and past-due amounts, yet I have not received charge-off accounting or statements proving the amounts and dates. \n\nStudent-loan transfer complexity : Numerous XXXX lines were paid or transferred in XXXX, then continued under different numbers in XXXX. Negative codes look like they migrated or were double-counted. I need a clean mapping showing which months were actually delinquent and proof that the same late window isnt reported twice. \n\nInquiry bursts : On XX/XX/XXXX, there were multiple auto-related pulls XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I did not obtain multiple loans that day. I asked for documentary proof of each requesters authority and to ensure proper deduplication for auto shopping. Similar clusters exist on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), among others. \n\nHarm suffered Continued publication of derogatory data and excessive inquiries has depressed credit scores, increased the cost of credit, and restricted access to favorable terms. \n\nThe presence of unsupported charge-off/collection statuses and lingering late codes on paid/closed accounts creates a misleading picture of creditworthiness. \n\nDuplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-seeking behavior I did not actually engage in. \n\nWhat Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item. \n\nProduce documentary evidencenot just a furnishers verified checkboxsuch as signed contracts, statements, payment ledgers, charge-off documentation, transfer/assignment records, and XXXX logs with timestamps and operator IDs. \n\nDelete or suppress any tradeline or derogatory code that can not be substantiated with original documentation or that is inconsistent with paid/closed status. \n\nCorrect student-loan reporting to prevent the same delinquency window from being counted on both the predecessor and successor loan IDs after consolidation/transfer. Remove any late codes that can not be supported with statements for the exact months alleged. \n\nRemove unauthorized or unvalidated hard inquiries where permissible purpose and consumer consent can not be proven with documentary records. Apply proper deduplication rules to auto/mortgage clusters. \n\nConfirm in writing the steps taken, the documents reviewed, the systems used to verify, and the names/titles ( or IDs ) of the compliance personnel who completed the reinvestigation. \n\nEnsure no reinsertion of any deleted item without full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including timely notice and furnisher certification.\n\nSend corrected reports to recent users of my credit file and provide me with confirmation copies.\n\nWhy a detailed audit trail matters here In past dispute attempts, responses have sometimes stated verified as accurate without identifying the method used, the underlying documents, or the specific fields that were reviewed. When the dispute is granularspecific late months, DOFD, charge-off amounts, transfer timingthe law requires more than a conclusory response. The systems involved ( XXXX, XXXX, or third-party data feeds ) create logs and message IDs that can be produced. These records, along with the furnishers source documents, would either validate the negative data or require its deletion. I am asking for those records now. \n\nClosing I have made a good-faith effort to identify precisely what appears inaccurate or incomplete : charge-off/collection characterizations without ledger support, lingering derogatory codes on paid/closed accounts, potential duplication/propagation of student-loan delinquencies after transfers, and multiple clusters of hard inquiries where I do not recognize authorizations or where deduplication appears not to have been applied. I respectfully request a meaningful reinvestigation, documentary Method of Verification, and prompt correction or deletion of all unverifiable information. Please provide a written summary of your findings, the documents relied upon, and the corrective actions taken.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:24:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"71201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210102","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:23:41.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Duplicative or unverified inquiries suggest elevated risk to prospective lenders and may be interpreted as credit-<em>seeking</em> behavior I did not actually <em>engage</em> in. \n\nWhat Im asking the companies and the Bureau to do Open a full reinvestigation of each disputed tradeline and inquiry and provide the Method of Verification in writing for each item."]},"sort":[4.7864547,"17210102"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7803385","_score":4.0953875,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX To : Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dear Sir or Madam of CFPBs Complaint/Dispute Department , I would like to draw your attention to the complaint letter of XX/XX/XXXX - I sent it for your attention, in which I clearly stated how I was affected personally, psychologically, and financially by the scam in which XXXX failed to protect my funds. However, it is over 30 days and I have yet to receive a response regarding my claim. I wish I can do anything to get this complaint done or get a resolution as soon as possible, seeing as the issue at hand is a matter of urgency for me. My complaint is against XXXX which did not do its job properly ( could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation ) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of XXXX XXXX and other banks do have a duty to protect customers against the risk of financial loss due to fraud and/or to undertake due diligence on large transactions to guard against the aforementioned fraud. Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated! Kind regards, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is to complain against XXXXXXXX XXXX URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of XXXXXXXX XXXX  to use your organization 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with XXXX XXXX In order to clear up the letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to XXXX XXXX respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. My complaint to the CFTC has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of XXXXXXXX XXXX to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, and protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. During the complaints process with XXXX XXXX, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFTC as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my XXXXXXXX XXXX  account to the fraudulent investment firm. When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether XXXXXXXX XXXX  did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of XXXX XXXX  custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether XXXX XXXX  promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether XXXX XXXX was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether XXXX Bank owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether XXXXXXXX XXXX did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Chase Banks conduct Page 2 of 5 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether XXXX XXXX has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, XXXX XXXX must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that XXXX XXXX did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past. XXXXXXXX XXXX Position : They choose to completely ignore the dispute letters and have never informed me nor have they done the investigation. I no longer have a choice but to turn to you for help and justice. Refuting XXXXXXXX XXXX arguments from a purely logical perspective : While I am appreciative of XXXX responses thus far, I have to admit that, to me, they do not seem nearly sufficient. A bank of XXXX caliber, in my opinion, should provide its clients with thorough responses to their complaints. XXXX XXXX  position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. In XXXX XXXX view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely on ) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. Page 3 of 5 XXXX XXXX XXXX  Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make XXXXXXXX XXXX morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if XXXX XXXX  encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as XXXX XXXX I have reviewed the material hereto sent by XXXXXXXX XXXX carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. It is perfectly obvious that XXXX XXXX, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. It is XXXX XXXX  here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that XXXX XXXX  adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is XXXX XXXX that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, XXXX XXXX indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, have maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. XXXX XXXX  is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple chequebooks ; Page 4 of 5 XXXX XXXX XXXX b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. g. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. B ) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action. XXXXXXXX XXXX is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. Rather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability XXXX XXXX adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. I am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by XXXX XXXX  in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core. Conclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forwardthinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. Page 5 of 5 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Astonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that XXXXXXXX XXXX business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. XXXX XXXX non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that XXXX XXXX  pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. In summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-17T18:41:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"06704","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7803385","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-11-04T10:25:08.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to <em>engage</em> these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. My complaint to the CFTC has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of XXXXXXXX XXXX to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers."]},"sort":[4.0953875,"7803385"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6296648","_score":3.6733685,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB)\n1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States\nThis is to complain against the Truist Financial Corporation\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX   I wish to practice my right as a customer of Truist Financial Corporation to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX  with Truist Financial Corporation.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Truist Financial Corporation respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Truist Financial Corporation to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money, and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Truist Financial Corporation, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct from management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\n\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX  which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Truist Financial account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Truist Financial Corporation did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Truist Financial Corporations custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Truist Financial Corporation promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Truist Financial Corporation was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Truist Financial Corporation owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Truist Financial Corporation did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Truist Financial Corporations conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Truist Financial Corporation has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Truist Financial Corporation must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Truist Financial Corporation did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past.\n \nTruist Financial Corporations Position:\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: Based on our investigation, Truist denies your claim for reimbursement because our investigation reveals the activity/transaction(s) was authorized.\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: You have advised that you were a victim of fraud... The information was keyed according to the Outgoing Wire Transfer Request Agreement, which you confirmed and signed.\nRefuting Truist Financial Corporations arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nTruist Financial Corporations position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Truist Financial Corporations view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely on) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Truist Financial Corporation morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Truist Financial Corporation encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Truist Financial Corporation.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Truist Financial Corporation carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Truist Financial Corporation, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\nIt is Truist Financial Corporation here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Truist Financial Corporation adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Truist Financial Corporation that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Truist Financial Corporations capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, Truist Financial Corporations indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions\n  \nand capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Truist Financial Corporation has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nTruist Financial Corporation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple chequebooks;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation\n  \nto the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nTruist Financial Corporation is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability  Truist Financial Corporation adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Truist Financial Corporation in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Truist Financial Corporations business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Truist Financial Corporations non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable\n \nconsumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Truist Financial Corporation pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX  XXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 9\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTruist Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC\nRe: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept. Dear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care has been breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence and/or have not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages that I have suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall serve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you have engaged in, is a pattern or a practice of wrongful and negligent conduct which has enabled the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX  (the Company), with the design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services,\" all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients, through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains.\n Money was transferred from my account via bank wire, credit card, debit card and through intermediaries named \"XXXX XXXX in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XXXX XXXX XXXX) 1\n    \nPage 2 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation, whether by raising chargeback and recall in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXXusd!\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm, and insist that you reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums while knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money that they had entrusted to it. The overall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced and naive, in pursuit of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered the fraud that was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as\n 2\n\nPage 3 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nwithholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial products are often abstract and complex, theres no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of investors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies, know-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of their customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive consumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme and therefore by their nature are jointly  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for investment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the investments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged thus causing significant economic damage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions; and the fraudulent transactions the Company perpetrated were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated which would have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to their crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include, but are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and malicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating from various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts and crypto currency wallets in multiple countries and used them through their accomplices from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated through\n 3\n\nPage 4 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nlegitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent\nnames, credentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name, officially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being conducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and furthermore, the call center, marketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden entities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum of financial maneuvers, is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a license and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require registration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g., according to XXXX XXXX)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data (e.g.: the manufacture of false charts). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that each client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the existence of the trades was fabricated. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using it to purchase various luxurious, non- essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing unrealistic returns/yields.\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. The Company was trading on my behalf (use of remote control of my computer).\n11. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n12. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data\nrepresenting the percentage of total client losses at the company.\n13. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n14. The Company did not read me the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n15. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my\nhealth.\n4\n\nPage 5 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nArmed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me, until I transferred all my savings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square and honorable business dealings along with honesty, to maliciously take advantage of my trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to conclude that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation of a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the XXXX XXXX  well established in the case of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nThe XXXX XXXX  requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing the instructions of a client. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the funds of the client.\"\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution is able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution should seek further information and/or documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it has become glaringly obvious to me that at best, no adequate\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    5\n\nPage 6 of 9 JXXXX XXXX XXXX\ninformation and/or documentation were sought by your organization, and at worst, no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable individual would make,\" it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment instruction is made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank is liable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on and suspended transactions until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transactions were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I am a fraud victim. (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [3].\nA financial institution would never be as reckless with its own assets as has been the case with my assets, and if you had treated my assets as though they were your own, this would not have been made possible. The debits made from my account should be reversed as a result of your failure to take proactive measures to protect it, just as you would do if your own assets were in a similar state of peril. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about an individual that adversely affects their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be liable to more than one regulatoXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  More often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly, to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence. A plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-20T18:39:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29681","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6296648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-12-08T23:55:35.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The financial institution should <em>seek</em> further information and/or documentation from the client in order to help establish this."]},"sort":[3.6733685,"6296648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10981005","_score":3.029827,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX\nThis is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal,\nimpartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to RIA respecting my\ncomplaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a\ndeeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof RIA to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service\nto look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional\nrelationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with RIA, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides\ntheir conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to\nadapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a\nreal problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of\nCFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company).\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i)\nwhether RIA did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material\nelements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my\nfinancial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of RIAs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them,\nthey owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether RIA\npromoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question\n(iv) whether RIA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether RIA owed duties\nto myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether RIA did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether\nRIAs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether RIA has within its power the ability to, and should,\ncompensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, RIA must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that RIA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers\nin this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nRIAs Position:\nPlease find attached all relevant evidence below.\nRIA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, RIA writes on\ntheir website:\nWe work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we:\n Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you 24/7, all year round.\n Secure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone\nbanking.\n Offer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices.\n Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security.\n Give you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats.\nRefuting RIAs arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nRIAs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect\ninnocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are\ndoomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn RIAs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make RIA morally obligated to do\nsomething is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if RIA encounter the suffering of\ntotally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree\nrequired by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as RIA.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by RIA carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to\nmy fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its\ndisposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to\ndetermine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to\nintervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that RIA, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key\nquestions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than\nits own interests.\nIt is RIA here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say,\nthat RIA adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive\nexperience compared to mine. It is RIA that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection\nto this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has\nnot been, commensurate with RIAs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To\nreemphasize, RIAs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a\nblind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and\ncapitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all RIA has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nRIA is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being\nperpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the\ncustomer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nRIA are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nrequiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and welljustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  RIA adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by RIA in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why\nthey cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful\nreflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to\ndisregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts,\nthereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that RIAs business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. RIAs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to\ncompletely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that RIA pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite\nevidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX\nXXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTo: RIA\nXXXX XXXX, California , United States\nVia Email\n[Without Prejudice]\nAttn: Complaints/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir or Madam,\nRe: Demand Letter  Fraud\nI hope this letter has correctly found itself within your complaints/fraud department as it is essential to me that\nyou become aware of the ordeal I have had to go through.\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company) with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting,\nmarketing, distributing, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of\nwhich aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of the\nclient losses to gains.\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\nOVERVIEW\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role those financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for enhanced\nsupervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced\ntransaction(s), this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Obviously, there is no consensus with respect to the degree and scope to which regulated and licensed\nfinancial institutions must intervene and block suspicious transactions, and indeed, in so doing,\nfinancial institutions may often cause payments to be slowed down unnecessarily or even some\nlegitimate payments may be rejected, however, please be noted that additional frictions such as slower\npayments (such as delaying payments or freezing funds to investigate) is beneficial to and welcomed\nby vulnerable customers and is widely considered to be a positive practice that is necessary in order to\nmaintain their financial safety, particularly for large-value and/or out of pattern.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an\nirresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and insist that\nyou reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and\nsensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as\npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards\nand rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good\nindustry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either\nupon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations\nconducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations\nset forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums\nwhile knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money, they had entrusted to it. The\noverall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced\nand naive, in pursuance of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud\nthat was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding\nfrom the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an\ninformed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A\ncomplication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble\nanalyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial\nproducts are often abstract and complex, there is no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of\ninvestors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies,\nknow-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that\nfinancial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the\nunderstanding of its customers.\nAccording to the Federal Trade Commissions interpretations of certain terms (like the words deceptive and\nunfair), the FTC has found that a deceptive act or practice encompasses a representation, omission or\npractice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers\ndetriment.\nThe federal courts have defined a deceptive trade practice [i] as any act or practice that has the tendency or\ncapacity to deceive consumers and have defined an unfair trade practice as any act or practice that offends\npublic policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive\nconsumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme\nand are therefore, by their very nature, jointly immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and\nsubstantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for\ninvestment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the\ninvestments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged, thus causing significant economic\ndamage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the fraudulent\ntransaction(s) the Company perpetrated upon me; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices which\nwould have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed, and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to\ntheir crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include,\nbut are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and\nmalicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating\nfrom various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts in multiple countries and used them through their\naccomplices and strawmen from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of\nillegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent names,\ncredentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name,\nofficially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being\nconducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and on top of that the call center,\nmarketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden\nentities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum\nof financial maneuvers is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a\nlicense and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require\nregistration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g.,\naccording to Bloomberg TV/Investing.com)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data\n(manufacturing false charts etc.). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that\neach client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the trades were simply\nconcocted. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using\nit to purchase various luxurious, non-essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing returns/yields (unrealistic ones).\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n11. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing\nthe percentage of total client losses at the company.\n12. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n13. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n14. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health.\n15. Armed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me into transferring all of my\nsavings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square\nand honorable business dealings along with honesty, in order to maliciously take advantage of\nmy trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has completely failed to adequately investigate the circumstances\nsurrounding the transaction(s) in question and willfully blinded itself to obvious red flags.\nMany suspicions should have arisen at your organization as an issue of great concern, with respect to the\nunusual activity taking place in my account. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements your\norganization should abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution  and instead of detecting\npatterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly you at best, merely and insufficiently\nperformed some hasty and haphazard reviews of the transaction(s) or possibly asked only minimal generic\nquestions regarding the suspicious activities, and at worst, shut your eyes completely rather than being careful,\nmethodical, and vigilant. Had you bothered, you would probably have realized that the funds were associated\nwith fraud and financial crime, rather than some other legitimate revenue/activity.\nIn light of the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions,\nit has become glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information and/or documentation were sought\nby your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executes a customer order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given,\nshutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as\nan honest and reasonable individual would undergo, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the\npayment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and the financial institution should still be\nliable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and where there\nare suspicions, these suspicions be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of\nvarious signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on therefore should have\nsuspended transaction(s) until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transaction(s)\nwas/were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the\nmisappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable staff\nmember would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was being defrauded.\n(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]\nYou knew or should have known that the funds being transferred through your services did not rightfully\nbelong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the funds being transferred\nthrough your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose. You turned a blind eye to the crimes that you\nhave facilitated and thus provided an array of essential money transfer services, acting as a vehicle, with the\nawareness that it was enabling the fraudsters to commit crimes and enrich themselves with the funds of their\nvictims.\nYour services undoubtedly served as a crucial element in the fraudulent scheme detailed herein, and you were\neither unaware of your complicity in the fraud, or, more worryingly, completely aware and silent. Had you\nconducted an adequate account analysis, you would have discovered the nature of the recipient, and\nsubsequently, disclosed and reported the fraudsters activities to law enforcement authorities/agencies and\nregulators. Instead, to satisfy your financial interests, you conveniently closed your eyes, even though you\nundeniably had, at all material times, the necessary controls and resources to influence, whether directly or\nindirectly, those particular transactions.\nYou also had the duty to stop those crimes, yet you refused to do so because you were more interested in\nenriching yourself, even if it meant furthering those crimes and allowing them to cause massive financial\nlosses to plenty of victims  many of whom are probably your customers. Therefore, it is clear that you did\nnot have in place adequate security measures to properly safeguard my assets  hence, you have\nirreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm other victims as well as\ntheir loved\nones and associates. You have irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably\nharm the general public, and our society deserves better.\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be\ntreated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a financial institution might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact\nthat a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further\nstatutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant\nregulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a financial institution to a regulator are distinct from\nthose beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be held liable to more than one regulator.\nAs a regulated and licensed financial institution, you have strict statutory and regulatory obligations to\nmonitor transactions and report any suspicious activities to law enforcement authorities. The importance of\nimplementing robust internal systems to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activities\nhas been continuously emphasized in the industry in addition to having the appropriate policies, procedures\nand internal controls in place to ensure ongoing compliance in respect to the aforementioned systems. You\nshould have analysed and distinguished thereafter between that which may be normal activity and that which\ncould suggest an illegal activity. This is a well-known standard industry practice which plays a substantial role\nin preventing criminals from liquidating and laundering funds.\nFRAUD\nActual fraud can be described, inter alia, as suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or\nbelief of the fact. Therefore, due to your actual knowledge that such scams are so prevalent, you are liable for\ndamages. Similarly, due to the fact that you knew or were grossly negligent in not kn","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-30T09:15:06.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10981005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ria Envia, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-30T08:54:09.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX\nThis is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, <em>seeking</em> a formal,\nimpartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA."]},"sort":[3.029827,"10981005"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":24,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":24}]}},"product":{"doc_count":24,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":10},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":2},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"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":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":24,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","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":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Denied request to lower payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":24,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":24}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":24,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":18},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":5},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":24,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":24}]}},"company":{"doc_count":24,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Robinson & Hoover","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Zarzaur and Schwartz, PC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":24,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"LA","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":24,"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":14},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":24,"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":{}}}