{"took":115,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":9,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7605406","_score":18.577711,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the multiple overdraft fees that have been assessed on our business account, over the past few months. We value our relationship with JP Morgan Chase and have always been diligent in managing our finances, but we are currently facing some unforeseen financial hardships that have made it challenging for us to keep up with these fees. \n\nOur business, XXXX XXXX, like many others, has been significantly impacted by the economic challenges of the past year. The ongoing pandemic and its repercussions have resulted in a substantial decrease in our revenue, and we are currently not making a profit. We are actively working on reorganizing our financial situation to ensure the long-term sustainability of our business. \n\nGiven our present financial obstacles, the overdraft fees have added an additional burden that we are struggling to manage. Every cent counts for us at this moment, and we believe that waiving these fees would provide us with the breathing room we desperately need to stabilize our financial situation. \n\nI kindly request that you consider our situation and grant us the relief of waiving the overdraft fees that have been charged to our account. We have been loyal customers of JP Morgan Chase for several years, and we genuinely appreciate the banking services and support you have provided to us throughout our partnership. \n\nIf possible, we would also appreciate any guidance or assistance you can offer to help us avoid similar financial challenges in the future. We are committed to working diligently to restore our financial stability and maintain a positive banking relationship with JP Morgan Chase. \n\nPlease let us know if there are any documents or information required from our end to process this request promptly. Your understanding and assistance in this matter would be immensely helpful to our business during these trying times. \n\nWe look forward to your positive response and appreciate your attention to our request. Thank you for your time and consideration.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-28T17:31:12.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7605406","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-09-26T14:05:34.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Our business, XXXX XXXX, like many others, has been significantly impacted by the economic <em>challenges</em> of the past year. The ongoing pandemic and its repercussions have resulted in a substantial decrease in our revenue, and we are currently not making a profit. We are actively working on reorganizing our financial situation to <em>ensure</em> the <em>long</em>-<em>term</em> <em>sustainability</em> of our business."]},"sort":[18.577711,"7605406"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8813399","_score":18.384598,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Since the initiation of this school loan in XXXX, I have consistently made efforts to stay informed about its status and dispute all related payments with Nelnet. Initially, I had requested the original school loan contract agreement showing my valid signature be submitted to me. I then can meticulously review the terms and conditions of the school loan to understand the repayment schedule, and any associated requirements. However, throughout the years, no from of proof that I truly owe this school loan debt has been sent supporting this claim. \nMoreover, I have maintained open communication with the school loan service provider Nelnet, promptly addressing any inquiries or concerns that arose. In terms of payments, I have prioritized meeting the monthly installments until XXXX to ensure that the school loan remains in good standing. Despite facing financial challenges at times, I have defaulted on payments, but always strived to fulfill my obligations in a timely manner. Additionally, I have explored various options to optimize the repayment process, such as enrolling in automatic payment plans or seeking refinancing opportunities when feasible. In instances where unexpected difficulties have arisen, such as temporary financial setbacks or changes in personal circumstances, I have proactively communicated with the school loan service provider Nelnet to explore potential solutions. This may have involved requesting temporary forbearance or negotiating revised payment plans to accommodate temporary hardships while ensuring long-term sustainability. Also, this has included researching and applying for school loan forgiveness programs or assistance initiatives that align with my circumstances. I have also taken steps to enhance my financial literacy, seeking guidance from financial advisors or attending workshops to better understand strategies for managing debt. Overall, my approach to resolving my school loan account since XXXX with Nelnet, and the Department of Education to remove that account from my credit report due to being misled by the school advisors, has been characterized as my responsibility, diligence, and proactive engagement. I am committed to fulfilling my obligations and will continue to take all necessary actions to ensure the successful resolution of this financial commitment.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-19T22:25:27.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8813399","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2024-04-19T21:22:41.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This may have involved requesting temporary forbearance or negotiating revised payment plans to accommodate temporary hardships while <em>ensuring</em> <em>long</em>-<em>term</em> <em>sustainability</em>. Also, this has included researching and applying for school loan forgiveness programs or assistance initiatives that align with my circumstances. I have also taken steps to enhance my financial literacy, seeking guidance from financial advisors or attending workshops to better understand strategies for managing debt."]},"sort":[18.384598,"8813399"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12108078","_score":9.903494,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I closed on an XXXX XXXX loan with Mortgage One Inc. During this process, multiple red flags were downplayed, ignored by, or misrepresented by those who owed a fiduciary duty. As a result, I was misled and ultimately pressured into proceeding with a loan that was not in my best interest. The key concerns include : XXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX : My real estate agent pressured me into moving forward with the purchase without a certified home inspection, even after the XXXX & XXXX inspection revealed imminent failure and required full replacement. My agent also insisted that I use Mortgage One Inc. as my lender. The reasoning provided was : - That \" shopping around '' for a lender would negatively impact my credit score. \n- That a local lender could expedite the process. \n- I was repeatedly assured that the home was in good condition, despite later discovering major health and safety hazards. \nMy agent maintained regular and inappropriate communication with the lender regarding my financial status and loan qualification. The lender and my agent worked together to structure a high-dollar loan, despite the home being unsafe and unlivable in its actual condition. There is also potential collusion with my agent and the selling agent, as my original offer appears to have been accepted ( XXXX data shows pending date of XX/XX/XXXX ) despite ongoing negotiations for 2 days before going under contract. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX on the condition of the property. Despite the disclosure indicating the house had no issues, multiple defects were uncovered after closing, such as : - Evidence of flooding & mold throughout the crawl space, and lack of proper vapor barrier/insulation - Evidence of recent repairs to the structure done incorrectly, contributing to further structural decline - Multiple ongoing active water leaks throughout the home, contributing to further mold in the living areas ( kitchen, bathrooms, subfloors, behind walls ) - Structural decay to the extent the back side of the home is caving in and windows are no longer sealed from the outside elements due to wood rot - Rodent infestation - Property sits on a high water table and experiences flooding during wet times of the year XXXX. Septic System Replacement Issue - The lender nor the XXXX ever mentioned the required septic system replacement, despite it being a requirement in the sales contract. \n- My agent assured me that funds would be held in escrow if the work wasn't completed, but this never happened. \n- The lender, seller, and agents failed to verify that the work was completed as required. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Concerns - My agent admitted in passing that the lender \" picked the XXXX himself '', which suggests a conflict of interest in the appraisal process. \n- The XXXX assigned an \" as-is '' value of {$370000.00} despite the following major health and safety issues discovered immediately after closing on XX/XX/XXXX : - Rodent infestation throughout the home. \n- Multiple active water leaks. \n- Mold contamination in the crawl space, under the kitchen sink, and throughout the primary bathroom. \n- Improper grading around the foundation and high water table issues. \n- Severely deteriorated supporting joists in the crawl space due to long-term moisture exposure. \n- XXXX with wood rot, failing to seal properly, creating energy inefficiency and additional water intrusion. \n- Despite these clear structural and safety issues, some of which are evident in the appraisal photos, the XXXX falsely reported that the home was \" well maintained '' and determined its effective age to be only 20 years. \n\nXXXX. Loan Interest Rate and Closing Fees Issues- My Loan Estimate ( XX/XX/XXXX ) stated an interest rate of 6.99 %, but this was shortly thereafter ( XX/XX/XXXX ) increased to 7.125 % without a clear explanation. \n- I paid over {$2000.00} in points at closing, yet my interest rate was not reduced nor were these fees explained to me. \n- Closing fees were so close to the maximum allowable amount that the lender had to apply a credit to keep the loan within regulatory limitsresulting in a mere {$5.00} credit. \n- Given my high Debt-to-Income ( DTI ) ratio, the lender failed to conduct adequate due diligence to ensure I could sustain the payments or that the home met FHAs minimum property standards. \n\nXXXX. Manipulation of Appraisal Dispute Process When I received the appraisal report, I was only given XXXX options : - Walk away from the deal. \n- Work with the sellers agent to challenge the price and increase the appraisal value. \n- At no point was I informed that I could challenge the appraisal to lower the valuation based on the homes condition. \n\nXXXX. Questionable Loan Documentation and HUD Compliance Issues - After reviewing the closing documents post-closing, I found that I had signed a blank XXXX form ( Direct Endorsement Approval for FHA XXXX ). \n- On XXXX XXXX XXXX certification ; the section requiring the CEOs signature was instead signed by the loan originator, which is improper. \n- When I recently called to request clarification, Mortgage One Inc. dismissed my concerns and refused to provide corrected copies, stating that \" this was normal. '' XXXX. Post-Closing Lender and Servicer Failures- After closing, I reached out to my loan XXXX regarding the homes unlivable condition and was told that nothing could be done. \nXXXX Mortgage One Inc. has seemingly failed to self-report defects that, under HUDs defect taxonomy, require lender disclosure and correction. \n- The loan servicer ( XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX multiple errors, including : - Paying my property taxes twice, which disrupted my escrow account. \n- Failing to renew my homeowners insurance, despite having the correct information and receiving the renewal. \n- Force-placing insurance on my home, which provides no personal coverage, only protecting the structure for the lenders benefit. \n\nXXXX. Severe Financial Harm and Foreclosure Risk Due to Lender and Servicer Negligence - Due in part to escrow mismanagement, unexpected repair costs, and ongoing legal expenses, I experienced a period of loan default, placing me at risk of foreclosure. \n- The estimated cost of necessary repairs has exceeded {$100000.00}, and though some of the repairs have been completed, I am not able to complete them all as my regular mortgage payment exceeds 60 % of my net income. \n- The servicers failure to properly manage escrow, including the double tax payment and failure to renew my homeowners insurance, further destabilized my financial position. \n- Despite my efforts to remain in good standing, the cumulative financial burden caused by these negligent actions has placed my home at risk.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-17T17:20:10.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"48162","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12108078","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MORTGAGE 1 INCORPORATION","date_received":"2025-02-17T17:07:55.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["- Given my high Debt-to-Income ( DTI ) ratio, the lender failed to conduct adequate due diligence to <em>ensure</em> I could <em>sustain</em> the payments or that the home met FHAs minimum property standards. \n\nXXXX. Manipulation of Appraisal Dispute Process When I received the appraisal report, I was only given XXXX options : - Walk away from the deal. \n- Work with the sellers agent to <em>challenge</em> the price and increase the appraisal value."]},"sort":[9.903494,"12108078"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7667771","_score":8.962465,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have notified the credit bureaus XXXX XXXX  of misreporting bytheir company in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to which, as the furnisher of the information in question, you have a grave responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information The following account ( XXXX  Account Number : xxxxxxxxxxxx XXXX ) is reporting a balance of ( {$7000.00} ) when it is my understanding an reason to believe that because this debt was charged off by you that it was memorialized with a Form 1099C as proof or evidence thereof. And that because of that fact, this debt is canceled and at least should not reflect the balance that is currently showing of ( {$7000.00} ) on my consumer file. This would indicate inaccurate reporting on your behalf and therefore is a violation by you the furnisher to continue to report this inaccurate information. Especially with my notice and knowledge confirmation of the errors.This incomplete and inaccurate reporting has had a negative impact on my creditworthiness for too long. To address this matter, I kindly request that you provide me with Form 1099-C, which is required as proof of debt cancellation according to IRS regulations.I have taken the initiative to ensure my financial records are accurate and up-to-date, and I believe that providing Form 1099-C is crucial to establishing the validity of this charge-off. It is my understanding that the absence of this form would render the charge-off entry incomplete and potentially inaccurate. If it is determined that the charge-off entry lacks proper documentation, I request that it be promptly removed from my credit report to ensure the accuracy of my credit profile. \n\n\n\nI XXXX XXXX presents evidence of what I believe to be deceptive and potentially unlawful practices by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the creditor in this case. The evidence I provide below is a communication I received from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a service provider to XXXX XXXX, regarding the handling of an unverifiable debt account : [ Attach a copy of the communication EXHIBIT A ] In this communication, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX placed my account for collection on XX/XX/XXXX, and subsequently recalled it on XX/XX/XXXX. However, I would like to draw the attention to several concerning aspects of this communication : Deceptive Practices : The recall of the account and its subsequent sale to another entity, XXXX & XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to me XXXX XXXX XXXX Deceptive practices, including recalling an account without proper notice or resolution, may be in violation of the FDCPA, which prohibits unfair and deceptive debt collection practices.. \n\n\nLack of Validation : Despite my explicit request for validation of the debt, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through its service provider XXXX, failed to provide any substantial documentation or verification of the debt. This failure to validate the debt as requested is a violation of my rights under debt collection laws. \n\n\nI believe that these actions by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicative of deceptive and potentially unlawful practices under the FCRA and FDCPA. By recalling the account and subsequently selling it to XXXX & XXXX XXXX for them to sue me for a debt that can not be validated by themselves : Case NO. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXa may have circumvented the protections provided by these laws, thereby compromising my rights. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  # XXXX ) is the Debt collection attorney suing me for a debt XXXX knownly lied about recalling account they sold just to resell it a few days later to another debt collection company. NO one at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX explain to me why a debt collection company is suing me for an unverifiable debt please CFPB help me i do not understand how they can do this. \n\nIT'S NO Comments or Statements Saying This account was sold or purchased by two different entities which is a clear violation that need to be removed for the sake of the banking system and my creditworthiness I am contesting any information on my consumer report that is not true or documented. This includes any claims that have not been proven to be correct. I am doing this in accordance with the FCRA and the accepted STANDARD of metro 2 data field reporting.I can not recognize or accept the allegation of delinquency and derogatoriness without factual document proof. I challenge the reportability of these allegations because it is unsubstantiated. According to federal and state law, you must report any allegation accurately and completely. It is wrong to report any claims that you know or should know are against the law or regulations The account in violation listed above is not related to a transaction authorized by me, the consumer. This item has been FTC & CFPB reported since me consumer XXXX since the notice of the negative item on my consumer report. \n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft ( a ) Block Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( b ) Notification A consumer reporting agency shall promptly notify the furnisher of information identified by the consumer under subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) that the information may be a result of identity theft ; ( 2 ) that an identity theft report has been filed ; ( 3 ) that a block has been requested under this section; and ( 4 ) of the effective dates of the block. \n\nFTC Report was sent to your company Report Number : XXXX back in XX/XX/XXXX with all the needed information to block and remove these inaccurate and incomplete accounts your company willingly ignored my request as a consumer which is an violation of FCRA laws 15 USC 1681a ( d ) Consumer Report. \n\n( XXXX ) In general. The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( 2 ) Exclusions. Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; I THE CONSUMER GAVE NO PERMISSION WRITTEN EITHER ORAL OR SIGNED DISCLOSURE TO GIVE PERMISSION TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO MY CONSUMER REPORT. WHERE & WHEN DID YOUR AGENCY RECEIVE PERMISSION TO FURNISH INFORMATION ON MY CONSUMER THATS NOT RELATED TO INFORMATION SOLELY AS TO TRANSACTIONS OR EXPERIENCES. VIOLATION OF FCRA ( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\nYour Agency Has failed to do an accurate and fair investigation No interviews with neighbors, friends or associates to determine my general reputation or personal characteristics was conducted which is a clear violation under congress.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 5 ) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information ( A ) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall ( i ) promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation; and ( ii ) promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.\n\nThe account listed above i found and proved to be inaccurate and incomplete after multiple disputes and it still reminded on my consumer report which is another violation and clear signs of neglect for consumers in your agency 15 USC 1681 The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer 's right to privacy.\n\nBy Your Agency reporting this negative information, they are contributing to the inefficiency of the banking system and public confidence of us, the consumers. Your Agency is violating my right to privacy given to me by congress. This is also a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and defamation of character.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 6 ) Notice of results of reinvestigation ( A ) In general a consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency.\n\n( B ) Contents As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph ( A ), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph ( A ) ( i ) a statement that the reinvestigation is completed ; ( ii ) a consumer report that is based upon the consumers file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation ; ( iii ) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available ; I would like to receive a description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and complete fairness of the information your agency found and used please include business names, addresses of any furnisher connected in connection with the information your agency receives. Your company is in violation for not following FCRA laws No procedure description was ever sent to me after every disputed item. REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681o - Civil liability for negligent noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Your agency has violated all the above rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,15 U.S. Code 1681 Permissible Purpose of my consumer report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information.\n\n( b ) Financial institutions safeguards In furtherance of the policy in subsection ( a ), each agency or authority described in section 6805 ( a ) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards ( 1 ) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information ; ( 2 ) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records ; and ( 3 ) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.\n\nYOUR AGENCY IS VIOLATING MY RIGHTS TO PRIVACY I want to make it clear that this is I, '' XXXX XXXX and not a credit repair company sending out this notice to you. I have attached proper identification to this notice. \n\nIn case you didn't know, reporting invalidated information is fraudulent and a violation of both state are federal laws, so if this matter doesn't get resolved within the time allotted I am willing to take legal action to compensate for the damages I've sustained, because you've not only been willfully and continuously neglecting my request but also willingly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Each Violation listed is actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of your agency negligence to follow laws your agency will have to pay {$1000.00} for each violation. REMOVE ITEM LISTED Immediately or face litigation in federal court for all listed violations for monetary damages and defamation of character and harming my credit worthiness.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-09T20:21:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"441XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7667771","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-10-09T20:21:22.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Especially with my notice and knowledge confirmation of the errors.This incomplete and inaccurate reporting has had a negative impact on my creditworthiness for too <em>long</em>."]},"sort":[8.962465,"7667771"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7666749","_score":8.962465,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have notified the credit bureaus & XXXX of misreporting bytheir company in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to which, as the furnisher of the information in question, you have a grave responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information The following account ( XXXX  Account Number : xxxxxxxxxxxx XXXX ) is reporting a balance of ( {$7000.00} ) when it is my understanding an reason to believe that because this debt was charged off by you that it was memorialized with a Form 1099C as proof or evidence thereof. And that because of that fact, this debt is canceled and at least should not reflect the balance that is currently showing of ( {$7000.00} ) on my consumer file. This would indicate inaccurate reporting on your behalf and therefore is a violation by you the furnisher to continue to report this inaccurate information. Especially with my notice and knowledge confirmation of the errors.This incomplete and inaccurate reporting has had a negative impact on my creditworthiness for too long. To address this matter, I kindly request that you provide me with Form 1099-C, which is required as proof of debt cancellation according to IRS regulations.I have taken the initiative to ensure my financial records are accurate and up-to-date, and I believe that providing Form 1099-C is crucial to establishing the validity of this charge-off. It is my understanding that the absence of this form would render the charge-off entry incomplete and potentially inaccurate. If it is determined that the charge-off entry lacks proper documentation, I request that it be promptly removed from my credit report to ensure the accuracy of my credit profile. \n\n\n\nI XXXX XXXX presents evidence of what I believe to be deceptive and potentially unlawful practices by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX the creditor in this case. The evidence I provide below is a communication I received from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a service provider to XXXX XXXX, regarding the handling of an unverifiable debt account : [ Attach a copy of the communication EXHIBIT A ] In this communication, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX placed my account for collection on XX/XX/XXXX, and subsequently recalled it on XX/XX/XXXX. However, I would like to draw the attention to several concerning aspects of this communication : Deceptive Practices : The recall of the account and its subsequent sale to another entity, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX raises concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to me XXXX XXXX XXXX Deceptive practices, including recalling an account without proper notice or resolution, may be in violation of the FDCPA, which prohibits unfair and deceptive debt collection practices.. \n\n\nLack of Validation : Despite my explicit request for validation of the debt, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX its service provider XXXX, failed to provide any substantial documentation or verification of the debt. This failure to validate the debt as requested is a violation of my rights under debt collection laws. \n\n\nI believe that these actions by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX may be indicative of deceptive and potentially unlawful practices under the FCRA and FDCPA. By recalling the account and subsequently selling it to XXXX & XXXX XXXX for them to sue me for a debt that can not be validated by themselves : Case NO. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  may have circumvented the protections provided by these laws, thereby compromising my rights. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  # XXXX ) is the Debt collection attorney suing me for a debt XXXX knownly lied about recalling account they sold just to resell it a few days later to another debt collection company. NO one at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX explain to me why a debt collection company is suing me for an unverifiable debt please CFPB help me i do not understand how they can do this.\n\nIT'S NO Comments or Statements Saying This account was sold or purchased by two different entities which is a clear violation that need to be removed for the sake of the banking system and my creditworthiness I am contesting any information on my consumer report that is not true or documented. This includes any claims that have not been proven to be correct. I am doing this in accordance with the FCRA and the accepted STANDARD of metro 2 data field reporting.I can not recognize or accept the allegation of delinquency and derogatoriness without factual document proof. I challenge the reportability of these allegations because it is unsubstantiated. According to federal and state law, you must report any allegation accurately and completely. It is wrong to report any claims that you know or should know are against the law or regulations The account in violation listed above is not related to a transaction authorized by me, the consumer. This item has been FTC & CFPB reported since me consumer XXXX since the notice of the negative item on my consumer report. \n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft ( a ) Block Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( b ) Notification A consumer reporting agency shall promptly notify the furnisher of information identified by the consumer under subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) that the information may be a result of identity theft ; ( 2 ) that an identity theft report has been filed ; ( 3 ) that a block has been requested under this section; and ( 4 ) of the effective dates of the block. \n\nFTC Report was sent to your company Report Number : XXXX back in XX/XX/XXXX with all the needed information to block and remove these inaccurate and incomplete accounts your company willingly ignored my request as a consumer which is an violation of FCRA laws 15 USC 1681a ( d ) Consumer Report. \n\n( 1 ) In general. The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( 2 ) Exclusions. Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; I THE CONSUMER GAVE NO PERMISSION WRITTEN EITHER ORAL OR SIGNED DISCLOSURE TO GIVE PERMISSION TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO MY CONSUMER REPORT. WHERE & WHEN DID YOUR AGENCY RECEIVE PERMISSION TO FURNISH INFORMATION ON MY CONSUMER THATS NOT RELATED TO INFORMATION SOLELY AS TO TRANSACTIONS OR EXPERIENCES. VIOLATION OF FCRA ( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\nYour Agency Has failed to do an accurate and fair investigation No interviews with neighbors, friends or associates to determine my general reputation or personal characteristics was conducted which is a clear violation under congress.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 5 ) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information ( A ) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall ( i ) promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation; and ( ii ) promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.\n\nThe account listed above i found and proved to be inaccurate and incomplete after multiple disputes and it still reminded on my consumer report which is another violation and clear signs of neglect for consumers in your agency 15 USC 1681 The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer 's right to privacy.\n\nBy Your Agency reporting this negative information, they are contributing to the inefficiency of the banking system and public confidence of us, the consumers. Your Agency is violating my right to privacy given to me by congress. This is also a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and defamation of character.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 6 ) Notice of results of reinvestigation ( A ) In general a consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency.\n\n( B ) Contents As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph ( A ), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph ( A ) ( i ) a statement that the reinvestigation is completed ; ( ii ) a consumer report that is based upon the consumers file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation ; ( iii ) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available ; I would like to receive a description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and complete fairness of the information your agency found and used please include business names, addresses of any furnisher connected in connection with the information your agency receives. Your company is in violation for not following FCRA laws No procedure description was ever sent to me after every disputed item. REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681o - Civil liability for negligent noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Your agency has violated all the above rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,15 U.S. Code 1681 Permissible Purpose of my consumer report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information.\n\n( b ) Financial institutions safeguards In furtherance of the policy in subsection ( a ), each agency or authority described in section 6805 ( a ) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards ( 1 ) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information ; ( 2 ) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records ; and ( 3 ) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.\n\nYOUR AGENCY IS VIOLATING MY RIGHTS TO PRIVACY I want to make it clear that this is I, '' XXXX XXXX and not a credit repair company sending out this notice to you. I have attached proper identification to this notice. \n\nIn case you didn't know, reporting invalidated information is fraudulent and a violation of both state are federal laws, so if this matter doesn't get resolved within the time allotted I am willing to take legal action to compensate for the damages I've sustained, because you've not only been willfully and continuously neglecting my request but also willingly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Each Violation listed is actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of your agency negligence to follow laws your agency will have to pay {$1000.00} for each violation. REMOVE ITEM LISTED Immediately or face litigation in federal court for all listed violations for monetary damages and defamation of character and harming my credit worthiness.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-09T20:21:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"441XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7666749","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-10-09T20:21:22.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Especially with my notice and knowledge confirmation of the errors.This incomplete and inaccurate reporting has had a negative impact on my creditworthiness for too <em>long</em>."]},"sort":[8.962465,"7666749"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7667840","_score":8.953494,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have notified the credit bureaus & XXXX of misreporting bytheir company in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to which, as the furnisher of the information in question, you have a grave responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information The following account ( XXXX Account Number : XXXX  XXXX ) is reporting a balance of ( {$7000.00} ) when it is my understanding an reason to believe that because this debt was charged off by you that it was memorialized with a Form 1099C as proof or evidence thereof. And that because of that fact, this debt is canceled and at least should not reflect the balance that is currently showing of ( {$7000.00} ) on my consumer file. This would indicate inaccurate reporting on your behalf and therefore is a violation by you the furnisher to continue to report this inaccurate information. Especially with my notice and knowledge confirmation of the errors.This incomplete and inaccurate reporting has had a negative impact on my creditworthiness for too long. To address this matter, I kindly request that you provide me with Form 1099-C, which is required as proof of debt cancellation according to IRS regulations.I have taken the initiative to ensure my financial records are accurate and up-to-date, and I believe that providing Form 1099-C is crucial to establishing the validity of this charge-off. It is my understanding that the absence of this form would render the charge-off entry incomplete and potentially inaccurate. If it is determined that the charge-off entry lacks proper documentation, I request that it be promptly removed from my credit report to ensure the accuracy of my credit profile. \n\n\n\nI XXXX XXXX presents evidence of what I believe to be deceptive and potentially unlawful practices by THD/CBNA ( Citibank N.a ) , the creditor in this case. The evidence I provide below is a communication I received from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a service provider to Citibank N.a, regarding the handling of an unverifiable debt account : [ Attach a copy of the communication EXHIBIT A ] In this communication, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledges that THD/CBNA placed my account for collection on XX/XX/XXXX, and subsequently recalled it on XX/XX/XXXX. However, I would like to draw the attention to several concerning aspects of this communication : Deceptive Practices : The recall of the account and its subsequent sale to another entity, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Citibank N.a raises concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to me XXXX XXXX XXXX Deceptive practices, including recalling an account without proper notice or resolution, XXXX be in violation of the FDCPA, which prohibits unfair and deceptive debt collection practices.. \n\n\nLack of Validation : Despite my explicit request for validation of the debt, XXXX Citibank N.a , through its service provider XXXX, failed to provide any substantial documentation or verification of the debt. This failure to validate the debt as requested is a violation of my rights under debt collection laws.\n\nI believe that these actions by XXXX Citibank N.a may be indicative of deceptive and potentially unlawful practices under the FCRA and FDCPA. By recalling the account and subsequently selling it to XXXX & XXXX XXXX for them to sue me for a debt that can not be validated by themselves : Case NO. XXXX, XXXX Citibank N.a may have circumvented the protections provided by these laws, thereby compromising my rights. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( OSCR # XXXX ) is the Debt collection attorney suing me for a debt THD/CBNA knownly lied about recalling account they sold just to resell it a few days later to another debt collection company. NO one at XXXX citibank na can explain to me why a debt collection company is suing me for an unverifiable debt please CFPB help me i do not understand how they can do this.\n\nIT'S NO Comments or Statements Saying This account was sold or purchased by two different entities which is a clear violation that need to be removed for the sake of the banking system and my creditworthiness I am contesting any information on my consumer report that is not true or documented. This includes any claims that have not been proven to be correct. I am doing this in accordance with the FCRA and the accepted STANDARD of XXXX XXXX data field reporting.I can not recognize or accept the allegation of delinquency and derogatoriness without factual document proof. I challenge the reportability of these allegations because it is unsubstantiated. According to federal and state law, you must report any allegation accurately and completely. It is wrong to report any claims that you know or should know are against the law or regulations The account in violation listed above is not related to a transaction authorized by me, the consumer. This item has been FTC & CFPB reported since me consumer XXXX since the notice of the negative item on my consumer report. \n15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft ( a ) Block Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( b ) Notification A consumer reporting agency shall promptly notify the furnisher of information identified by the consumer under subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) that the information may be a result of identity theft ; ( 2 ) that an identity theft report has been filed ; ( 3 ) that a block has been requested under this section; and ( 4 ) of the effective dates of the block. \n\nFTC Report was sent to your company Report Number : XXXX back in XX/XX/XXXX with all the needed information to block and remove these inaccurate and incomplete accounts your company willingly ignored my request as a consumer which is an violation of FCRA laws 15 USC 1681a ( d ) Consumer Report.\n\n( 1 ) In general. The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( 2 ) Exclusions. Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; I THE CONSUMER GAVE NO PERMISSION WRITTEN EITHER ORAL OR SIGNED DISCLOSURE TO GIVE PERMISSION TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO MY CONSUMER REPORT. WHERE & WHEN DID YOUR AGENCY RECEIVE PERMISSION TO FURNISH INFORMATION ON MY CONSUMER THATS NOT RELATED TO INFORMATION SOLELY AS TO TRANSACTIONS OR EXPERIENCES. VIOLATION OF FCRA ( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\nYour Agency Has failed to do an accurate and fair investigation No interviews with neighbors, friends or associates to determine my general reputation or personal characteristics was conducted which is a clear violation under congress.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 5 ) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information ( A ) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall ( i ) promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation; and ( ii ) promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.\n\nThe account listed above i found and proved to be inaccurate and incomplete after multiple disputes and it still reminded on my consumer report which is another violation and clear signs of neglect for consumers in your agency 15 USC 1681 The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer 's right to privacy.\n\nBy Your Agency reporting this negative information, they are contributing to the inefficiency of the banking system and public confidence of us, the consumers. Your Agency is violating my right to privacy given to me by congress. This is also a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and defamation of character.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 6 ) Notice of results of reinvestigation ( A ) In general a consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency.\n\n( B ) Contents As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph ( A ), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph ( A ) ( i ) a statement that the reinvestigation is completed ; ( ii ) a consumer report that is based upon the consumers file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation ; ( iii ) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available ; I would like to receive a description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and complete fairness of the information your agency found and used please include business names, addresses of any furnisher connected in connection with the information your agency receives. Your company is in violation for not following FCRA laws No procedure description was ever sent to me after every disputed item. REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681o - Civil liability for negligent noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Your agency has violated all the above rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,15 U.S. Code 1681 Permissible Purpose of my consumer report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information.\n\n( b ) Financial institutions safeguards In furtherance of the policy in subsection ( a ), each agency or authority described in section 6805 ( a ) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards ( 1 ) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information ; ( 2 ) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records ; and ( 3 ) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.\n\nYOUR AGENCY IS VIOLATING MY RIGHTS TO PRIVACY I want to make it clear that this is I, '' XXXX XXXX and not a credit repair company sending out this notice to you. I have attached proper identification to this notice. \n\nIn case you didn't know, reporting invalidated information is fraudulent and a violation of both state are federal laws, so if this matter doesn't get resolved within the time allotted I am willing to take legal action to compensate for the damages I've sustained, because you've not only been willfully and continuously neglecting my request but also willingly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Each Violation listed is actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of your agency negligence to follow laws your agency will have to pay {$1000.00} for each violation. REMOVE ITEM LISTED Immediately or face litigation in federal court for all listed violations for monetary damages and defamation of character and harming my credit worthiness.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-09T20:21:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"441XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7667840","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-10-09T19:37:24.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Especially with my notice and knowledge confirmation of the errors.This incomplete and inaccurate reporting has had a negative impact on my creditworthiness for too <em>long</em>."]},"sort":[8.953494,"7667840"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18434104","_score":6.2268286,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX in Mortgage Tax Servicing : The CoreLogic-BAC Nexus Executive Summary : Strategic Context and Definitive Findings The structural transformation of the United States mortgage servicing landscape over the past XXXX decades is epitomized by the strategic nexus formed between XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) and CoreLogic. This relationship, fundamentally cemented through a landmark asset divestiture in XX/XX/XXXX, represents a profound shift in the operational philosophy of systemically important financial institutions ( SIFIs ). The identification of \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' unequivocally points to a former operational unit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose common shares trade under the XXXX symbol \" BAC ''. This corporate linkage is the cornerstone for understanding a transactional framework that moved from internal bank management to a highly specialized, scaled third-party processing ( TPP ) model. \nThe relationship is not competitive or transactional on a spot-market basis, but rather an established, long-term outsourcing arrangement born from necessity. This arrangement was formalized when XXXX acquired XXXX property tax processing and flood zone determination assets, along with their corresponding operating platforms. Post-acquisition, XXXX rebranded as Cotality in XXXXassumed the primary responsibility as the operational payer to more than XXXX municipal tax authorities. In this capacity, XXXX functions as a specialized TPP, executing the fiduciary property tax obligations retained by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for its massive residential loan portfolio. \nThe transaction data reflects the execution of mortgage servicing obligations through XXXX primary capital flows. The most visible flow consists of large, bundled disbursements directed toward specific taxing jurisdictions, such as county treasurers, derived from accumulated homeowner escrow funds. The second, less visible flow involves the internal transfer of fiduciary capital and contractual servicing fees from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to XXXX under the specific XXXX services agreement established during the XXXX asset purchase. This strategic outsourcing decision was fundamentally driven by the need to streamline operations, reduce inherent litigation exposure associated with high-volume tasks, and optimize regulatory capital utilization under the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nCorporate Identity Disambiguation and the XXXX XXXX XXXX The precise nature of the CoreLogic and BAC relationship is anchored in a definitive strategic transaction that occurred in XXXX. To analyze this relationship, it is first necessary to disambiguate the corporate entities involved. The nomenclature \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' strongly correlates with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, as \" BAC '' is the definitive organizational identifier used on the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. This massive financial services unit must be distinguished from smaller, unrelated entities like \" XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' which specializes in individual tax returns. \nThe transactional relationship began with a major strategic divestiture. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX publicly announced the acquisition of flood zone determination and property tax processing services assets from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. This deal, which closed on XX/XX/XXXX, was funded by cash on hand and accompanied by a long-term services agreement. \nTable XXXX : XXXX Acquisition of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) | Asset/Function | Seller ( BAC Operational Unit ) | Acquirer ( CoreLogic ) | Resultant Payer Status | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | Tax Processing Platforms | Internal Servicing Infrastructure | Services Segment Operations | CoreLogic became operational payer to municipalities | | Flood Zone Determination | Internal Compliance Unit | Specialized CoreLogic Unit | CoreLogic became contracted provider for compliance | | Servicing Obligation | Remains with XXXX ( MSRs retained ) | Operational Execution Outsourced | XXXX is the funder ; CoreLogic is the executor | | | Fiduciary Duty | Retained by XXXX | Managed via Agreement | The strategic rationale for Bank of Americas divestiture was rooted in the post-XXXX economic crisis environment. By XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX was grappling with intense regulatory scrutiny concerning its past origination and servicing activities, including extensive litigation related to foreclosure documentation. Divesting complex, high-risk operational business lines was a key component of XXXX 's XXXX to reduce its involvement in non-core functions and mitigate the massive legal fees associated with managing a distressed loan portfolio. \nFor XXXX, the acquisition was a move to achieve scale and expand profitability. XXXX XXXX, then XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, stated the deal aligned with the companys imperative of driving scale and operating leverage in its mortgage origination services segment. The integration of XXXX 's operations was expected to create significant revenue growth and margin expansion, effectively making XXXX the \" utility '' for XXXX 's tax compliance. \nThe Macroeconomic and Regulatory Catalyst : XXXX XXXX and De-Risking The broader strategic implication of this payer relationship serves as a primary case study of the structural changes within the XXXX XXXX services sector following the XXXX crisis. The decision to outsource was not merely operational ; it was a response to the punitive regulatory capital requirements introduced by the XXXX XXXX framework. \nXXXX XXXX and MSR Risk Weighting XXXX XXXX, as implemented by XXXX federal regulators, placed restrictive limits on the amount of Mortgage Servicing Rights ( MSRs ) that could be held by federally regulated financial institutions. Under pre-crisis rules, bank MSR investments were limited to XXXX  % of the common equity component of tier XXXX capital. XXXX XXXX reduced this cap to XXXX %. Furthermore, the implementation significantly increased the risk-weighting of MSRs from XXXX % to XXXX %. \nThis regulatory environment transformed MSRs into an exceptionally costly asset class. The \" gold plating '' of XXXX risk weights in the XXXX added XXXX percentage points across the board, further incentivizing banks to sell MSRs or, at the very least, outsource the operational mechanics to reduce the overhead and potential for regulatory failure. By transferring the property tax processing function to a non-bank entity like XXXX, Bank XXXX XXXX effectively shifted the operational and compliance burden, paying XXXX to manage the risk while optimizing its own balance sheet. \nXXXX XXXX and Structural Simplification Simultaneously, Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act required large financial institutions to develop resolution plans, or \" living wills ''. These plans are intended to ensure that a large bank can be resolved in a rapid and orderly fashion without a taxpayer bailout. Part of this process involves rationalizing and simplifying the company 's legal entity structure by eliminating non-essential internal units. Divesting the tax servicing operations into a contractual XXXX relationship with XXXX supported XXXX 's goal of \" Responsible Growth '' by reducing internal complexity and aligning with their risk framework. \nOperational Framework of Mortgage Escrow and Third-Party Processing To interpret the transactional data between BAC and CoreLogic, one must understand the technical mechanism of property tax escrow, commonly known as XXXX ( Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance ). For most residential mortgages, the servicerXXXX XXXX XXXXcollects a portion of the annual property taxes and insurance premiums each month, holding them in a segregated, fiduciary escrow account. \nThe Mechanism of Property Tax Escrow The mortgage servicer accepts a fiduciary duty to accurately collect, hold, and disburse these funds to governmental tax authorities and insurance carriers. This duty involves three key components : * Duty of Loyalty : Managing assets solely in the interests of the beneficiaries ( the homeowners and investors ).\n\n* Duty of Care : Exercising a high degree of skill to ensure timely and accurate payments. \n* Duty of Disclosure : Providing complete and accurate information about escrow balances and transactions.\n\nBecause property taxes are managed by thousands of highly fragmented local jurisdictions, the process of disbursement is exceptionally complex and prone to error. CoreLogic fills this gap as a specialized TPP, providing a centralized data infrastructure that tracks jurisdictional tax rates, payment dates, and parcel-level property data.\n\nOperational Payer Hierarchy in the Outsourced Model In this outsourced model, the operational hierarchy dictates the nature of the observed payments. Each year, typically around XXXX, the servicer ( BofA ) provides CoreLogic with a list of properties for which taxes are due. The servicer then remits the accumulated escrow capital to CoreLogic. CoreLogic then assumes the role of the physical disburser, sending bulk payments to municipal tax authorities. \nA local government office, such as the XXXX XXXX XXXX, receives the tax payment from CoreLogic, not directly from XXXX XXXX XXXX This transfer of operational liability ensures continuity of service for the bank while achieving risk isolation. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX retains the regulatory oversight of the service contract but offloads the manual, error-prone task of tracking thousands of individual tax bills. \nDetailed Analysis of Transactional Flow and Payer Dynamics The payment history data reflects a sophisticated two-way flow of capital governed by the XXXX services agreement. Dissecting this flow clarifies the distinct financial responsibilities of XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. \nObserved Payments ( CoreLogic as Payer ) When CoreLogic is the originating Payer, the transaction represents a XXXX XXXX XXXX aimed at satisfying local government obligations. These are the final payments in the escrow cycle. CoreLogic aggregates funds for thousands of properties and sends consolidated payments to taxing jurisdictions. The timing of these disbursements is critical, aligning with local due dates and \" Economic Loss Dates '' ( ELDs ). CoreLogics proprietary data systems track these localized variances to ensure accuracy. \nUnseen Transactional Flow ( BAC as Payer ) While CoreLogic is the visible payer to the municipality, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX acts as the payer in the internal XXXX transactions necessary to fund the operation. This flow has XXXX components : * Escrow Fund Remittance : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX transfers the accumulated homeowner escrow capital ( the XXXX & I portion of XXXX ) to CoreLogic. This is a transfer of trust funds, where XXXX takes temporary custody of the funds needed for the tax bill. \n* Servicing Fee Payments : XXXX XXXX  XXXX pays contractual service fees to CoreLogic. This payment stream is CoreLogics compensation for operational administration, compliance management, and platform usage. This component generates the actual revenue and margin expansion anticipated during the XXXX acquisition. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX The asset transfer introduced considerable accounting complexity, particularly in managing fiduciary capital. For CoreLogic, the acquisition necessitated adjustments to its cash flow reporting, as its operating activities became linked to managing high-volume escrow accounts. While escrow funds are not revenue, their management requires meticulous reconciliation. \nA key financial mechanism in this model is optimizing the \" velocity of money '' or \" float ''. Escrow accounts represent a massive, short-term pool of liquid capital. If CoreLogic receives funds from XXXX XXXX XXXX well in advance of the municipal due dates, it gains control over significant working capital for the intervening period. CoreLogics ability to achieve \" margin expansion '' is tied to managing this float efficiently, ensuring capital is deployed advantageously before final disbursement.\n\nTechnology and Integration : The Digital Tax Portal The relationships sustainability is driven by CoreLogics significant investment in compliance technology. Traditionally, property tax processing relied on manual data handling and XXXX databases. CoreLogic transformed this process by building a Digital Tax Portal delivered to local municipalities.\n\nFeatures of the Digital Tax Portal The portal centralizes loan and property tax data, providing real-time visibility into tax deadlines and payment status. It allows for : * Near Real-time Agency Connections : Access to data from XXXX agencies, including collector details and payment instructions. \n* Delinquency Risk Tracking : Tracking cut-off dates and collections to ensure correct payments.\n\n* Self-Serve Features : Allowing servicers to update contracts, tax IDs, and legal documents in a few clicks.\n\n* Automated Verification : Tools like Digital tax Connect provide instant access to property tax data through APIs, reducing manual processes and improving customer satisfaction. \nBy XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX % of client decisions were being performed through the portal rather than traditional methods. This digital transformation provides a layer of operational assurance and risk mitigation that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX could not achieve with its fragmented legacy internal systems. \nTable 2 : Digital Tax Portal Capabilities and Impact | Feature | Functionality | Strategic Benefit | | -- -| -- -| -- -| | Collector Portal | Electronic viewing and download of payment packages | Transparency and speed of reconciliation | | Tru-Pay Certification | Identifies shortages, overages, and duplicate payments | Mitigation of refund requests and errors | | API Integration | Seamless connection to servicer websites and apps | Reduced call center volume and cost | | Delinquency Monitoring | Real-time tracking of unpaid taxes and tax sales | Protection of the bank 's first-lien position | Operational and Consumer Impact of the Servicing Transition The corporate restructuring between CoreLogic and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX had tangible operational consequences, particularly during the transition period of XXXX. Moving massive volumes of data from legacy XXXX systems to XXXX platforms introduced friction points in data fidelity. \nImpact on Escrow Analysis Mortgage servicers are legally required to conduct an annual escrow analysis to ensure sufficient funds are collected. Discrepancies arising from data migrationsuch as inaccurate tracking of local property valuations or delayed recognition of tax increasescan lead directly to flawed analyses. \nConsequences for Homeowners ( XXXX ) A common consequence of operational friction during a servicing overhaul is the occurrence of an escrow shortage. A shortage occurs when the amount collected in the homeowners account is insufficient to cover the actual tax bill paid by CoreLogic. In XXXX and XXXX, former XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX customers reported significant increases in their monthly payments as the servicer attempted to \" catch up '' on these shortages. \nIn some cases, homeowners discovered that funds intended for escrow were being incorrectly applied to the mortgage principal, creating a shortage in the tax account. These issues highlight the critical need for high-accuracy processing and the forensic accounting oversight that specialized entities like CoreLogic provide.\n\nRisk and Litigation Context : The Post-Crisis Clean-Up The divestiture of tax servicing was part of a larger effort by Bank of XXXX to resolve the legal overhang of the financial crisis. In XXXX, the bank agreed to a record {$16.00} billion settlement with the Department of Justice to resolve claims related to the packaging and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities ( RMBS ). \nLitigation Pressures and Regulatory Settlements XXXX XXXX XXXX faced numerous lawsuits from state attorneys general and federal agencies like the XXXX. These settlements addressed systemic failures in mortgage origination and servicing, including misrepresentations made to investors and government entities like XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX. \nBy outsourcing tax servicing to CoreLogic, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX reduced its exposure to future litigation related to property tax errors, which had become a significant source of liability for the bank. This shift allowed XXXX to focus on its \" Responsible Growth '' tenets, growing within its risk framework and driving operational excellence. \nTable 3 : Major XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Regulatory Settlements ( XXXX ) | Date | Settlement Entity | Amount | Focus Area | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX$11.00} XXXX XXXX Repurchase and servicing claims | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX | {$6.00} XXXX | XXXX litigation and contract claims | | XX/XX/XXXX | DOJ / SEC | {$16.00} XXXX | XXXX fraud and disclosure failures | | XX/XX/XXXX | CFPB | {$720.00} XXXX | Deceptive marketing of add-on products | The Rebranding of CoreLogic to Cotality ( XXXX ) The evolution of the relationship reached a new stage in XX/XX/XXXX when CoreLogic announced its global rebrand to Cotality. This transformation reflects the companys progression from a financial services support provider to a leader in property information and data-enabled solutions. \nStrategic Reasons for the Rebrand The transition from CoreLogic to Cotality was described by XXXX XXXX XXXX as a \" transformation with purpose ''. The new name embodies XXXX pillars : * Collaboration and Connectivity : Uniting property professionals and fostering industry relationships. \n* Totality : Delivering comprehensive data and technology across the entire property ecosystem. \n* Vitality : Human-centric innovation and a focus on helping people thrive. \nFor mortgage lenders, the rebrand signifies a partner focused on delivering enhanced, AI-driven insights to make home lending as efficient and effective as possible. \nXXXX XXXX for Mortgage XXXX XXXX vision for the future of mortgage servicing involves utilizing billions of real-time data signals to unearth hidden risks and opportunities. This includes : * XXXX XXXX Platforms : Helping institutions consolidate multiple vendor services into a single provider to cut costs and streamline workflows. \n* AI and Automation : Leveraging \" CoreAI '' to evolve with the property ecosystem and drive smarter lending decisions.\n\n* End-to-End Solutions : Providing predictive knowledge throughout the loan journey, from marketing and origination to servicing and monitoring. \nAs of XXXX, Cotality manages property tax payments for XXXX % of XXXX homes with first liens and serves XXXX of the top XXXX mortgage servicers. Its stable financial outlook is supported by XXXX growth, cost savings, and interest income on cash deposits held in its tax business. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of Cotality Despite the challenges of high interest rates, Cotality has maintained a stable financial trajectory. In the XXXX months ended XX/XX/XXXX, the company reported revenue of {$980.00} XXXX, a modest year-over-year increase. Its revenue and XXXX growth are driven by market share gains and improving efficiency through cost-cutting, including a XXXX % reduction in global office space over the past XXXX years. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Cotality faces significant debt maturities in XXXX and will likely need to refinance its {$5.00} XXXX of debt in early XXXX. XXXX & XXXX XXXX economists forecast that mortgage rates will improve in XXXX and XXXX, which would provide a favorable environment for this refinancing. The companys liquidity remains ample, and it expects to use future cash flow to repay its revolver. \nTable XXXX : Cotality XXXX XXXX and Projections | Indicator | XXXX XXXX Actual | XXXX XXXX Actual | XXXX Projection | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | Revenue | {$980.00} XXXX | {$980.00} XXXX | Growth via non-mortgage biz | | Debt to XXXX | N/A | XXXX | XXXX ( Improving ) | | Free Operating Cash Flow | Negative | Improving | Positive | | Mortgage Origination Volume | Baseline | XXXX % ( Expected ) | XXXX % ( XXXX XXXX Unknown","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T00:05:49.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"30331","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18434104","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CORELOGIC INC","date_received":"2026-01-02T23:32:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This deal, which closed on XX/XX/XXXX, was funded by cash on hand and accompanied by a <em>long</em>-<em>term</em> services agreement."]},"sort":[6.2268286,"18434104"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12460574","_score":5.649765,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Introduction, see page 2 Grounds for Punitive Damages, see page 8 A Recap, see page 9 Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure per TILA, see page XXXX  Key Issues, see page XXXX  Financial Impact, see page 13 Requested Legal Remedies, see last page, 13 SUBJECT : Legal Representation Request for TILA Violation and Predatory Lending Case involving M & T Bank and its underwriters. PREDATORY LOAN MADE TO XXXX COUPLE. \n\nDear licensed XXXX  attorney with experience in predatory lending : We, aged XXXX, are seeking the legal expertise of a licensed XXXX  attorney experienced in predatory lending, as this case is a clear-cut violation of established TILA laws. M & T Bank issued a predatory loan to a XXXX couple, fully aware that the loan would inevitably implode within XXXX years after consummation, when the couple transitioned from full-time employment to relying solely on their combined Social Security income. The bank made no consideration for the couples financial well-being, despite knowing their income would drastically decrease upon retirement, expected within XXXX years after the loan was finalized. Furthermore, the bank failed to adhere to the TILA \" ability to repay '' requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1639c ( a ), which mandates lenders to ensure that borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. Additionally, the bank ignored the couples staggering debt-to-income ratio of 125 % at the time of loan approval, far exceeding the 41 % debt-to-income ratio cap established under the TILA regulations, specifically 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ( e ), which sets limits on acceptable debt-to-income ratios for loans. \nOur case involves M & T Bank and its underwriters, operating its headquarters in XXXX, XXXX, and we need a Maryland-licensed attorney to represent us in a legal action against their underwriters. \nWHO DO WE WANT TO SUE? The finance company XXXX M & T Bank, and its underwriters, which are headquartered as stated per Plaintiffs loan contract : Assignment : This [ Retail Installment ] Contract and Security Agreement is assigned to M & T Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, phone XXXX. XXXX : XXXX M & T bank in all XXXX states? It operates XXXX branches in XXXX states and XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXs XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Until XX/XX/XXXX, the bank 's holding company was named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX M & T Bank has been profitable in every quarter since XXXX. \n\nINTRODUCTION : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs, a married couple aged XXXX, purchased a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  for {$85000.00} with the intention of using it as their primary residence. This XXXX loan, with a monthly payment they could not sustain long-term, was approved despite the Plaintiffs financial vulnerabilities. Despite having excellent credit and a 10 % down payment, the Plaintiffs were preparing for retirement in XXXX or XXXX, and their income was set to drop dramatically from approximately {$20000.00} per month to just {$3400.00} per month, before taxes, from their combined Social Security. They had no assets nor reserves. \n\nPrior to securing the {$85000.00} loan, the XXXX had an alarming debt-to-income ratio of 125 %, far exceeding the 41 % cap set by the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). According to TILA, lenders must assess a borrowers ability to repay the loan before approval ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ). TILA mandates that lenders verify income, evaluate a borrowers debt obligations, and ensure that the borrower can reasonably meet the terms of the loan without undue hardship ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ( c ) ( 2 ) ). The Plaintiffs had every intention of paying off their existing debts before retiring, yet their financial situation took a drastic turn for the worse when the male Plaintiff lost his sole source of income just XXXX months after the loan was consummated in XX/XX/XXXX. Without reserves, assets, or any other income to rely on, they were left in a position where they could not meet the obligations of the {$85000.00} loan or manage their existing debts. \n\nFrom the outset, this loan was predatory. The Plaintiffs were already financially overextended when they agreed to this loan at the ages of XXXX, and M & T Banks underwriters knew it. The loan was structured to fail, with no feasible plan to repay such a substantial debt given the Plaintiffs ' imminent reliance on Social Security income. This lack of foresight, combined with the banks disregard for the Plaintiffs financial well-being, demonstrates the predatory nature of this loan. M & T Bank 's actions were deliberate, and they knowingly set the Plaintiffs up for failure. \n\nThis case is a clear example of financial exploitation, and it presents an opportunity to hold M & T Bank accountable for its actions. The Plaintiffs financial devastation is not just a consequence of misfortune, but the result of a predatory loan designed to trap them in an untenable position. We urge you to consider taking this case on, as it highlights a blatant disregard for the Plaintiffs ' financial security, as well as a clear violation of TILAs ability-to-repay requirements ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ). M & T Bank 's actions violate responsible lending practices and demand legal action. \n\nWe, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, a married couple aged XXXX at the time of loan consummation in XX/XX/XXXX, are seeking a licensed XXXX  attorney. We have been subjected to predatory lending practices that involve clear violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), causing significant financial hardship. \n\nThis case involves a {$85000.00}, XXXX loan for a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX which was misclassified by M & T Banks underwriters as a `XXXX vehicle loan, '' despite its residential nature and our explicit intent to use it as our primary residence. This misclassification allowed M & T Banks underwriters to bypass crucial TILA protections, particularly the ability to repay requirements outlined in 12 CFR 1026.43.\n\nUnder TILA, lenders are required to assess the borrowers ability to repay the loan before extending credit. This includes verifying income, future income, assets, reserves, calculating the debt-to-income ratio, and evaluating the borrowers ability to manage debt responsibly. \n\nTHIS ATTORNEY SHOULD NOTE that while the Plaintiffs intended to retire in XXXX or XXXX with their debts fully paid off, their financial situation drastically changed shortly after the consummation of the {$85000.00}, XXXX loan in XX/XX/XXXX, when they were both XXXX XXXX XXXX. Less than XXXX months after the loan was finalized, the male Plaintiff, who had been working as a contractor, lost his ability to continue working. This unexpected loss of income left the Plaintiffs with a mounting pile of debt and no financial reserves or assets to fall back on. They found themselves in a dire financial position, unable to meet their obligations, and with no means to recover. \n\nWhat is even more troubling is that M & T Banks underwriters were fully aware that the Plaintiffs had no reserves or assets to fall back on in case of financial hardship. Despite this, they approved the loan, fully aware that any significant change in the Plaintiffs ' incomesuch as the male Plaintiffs loss of workwould leave them unable to manage the substantial debt burden. This demonstrates a complete disregard for the Plaintiffs ' financial stability and future, contributing to a rapidly deteriorating financial situation shortly after the loan was consummated.\n\nWhile the Plaintiffs have not yet defaulted on the loan, they have been forced to make late payments, which have negatively impacted their FICO scores. Additionally, while the Plaintiffs have not yet fully transitioned to living solely on Social Security income, they will begin receiving their Social Security benefits in XXXX and plan to retire at that time and will have no ability to keep making this {$85000.00} XXXX loan payment. This impending reduction in income further underscores the unsustainable nature of the loan, which was clearly unaffordable even before the significant changes in the Plaintiffs ' financial situation. \n\nSince the Plaintiff was forced to cease working as a XXXX just XXXX months after the loan was consummated, his income has significantly decreased to {$1000.00} per week. Both he and his wife, now XXXX, have managed to secure low-paying jobs ; however, their combined earnings are insufficient to cover their mounting financial obligations. As a result, they find themselves in a constant struggle to meet their obligations, often having to \" XXXX XXXX to pay XXXX. '' This has led to late payments on the loan and a substantial deterioration in their credit, further compounding their financial distress. \n\nDespite these significant financial realities, M & T Banks underwriters approved a {$85000.00}, XXXX loan for an XXXX, which carried a monthly payment of {$800.00}, not including the additional {$150.00} per month for XXXX insurance and {$900.00} per month for parking ( excluding utilities ). This loan added an additional {$1800.00} in fixed monthly expenses for the Plaintiffs, without accounting for their already overwhelming debts. \n\nAt the time the loan was consummated, the XXXX Plaintiffs were already in a precarious financial situation. The male Plaintiff was burdened with a {$1200.00} monthly truck payment for the next XXXX years, {$350.00} in monthly truck and car insurance premiums, and credit card debt approaching {$10000.00}. Additionally, he was paying off a {$7000.00} loan for a work trailer, which would take another XXXX years to fully settle. These significant existing obligations, combined with the new XXXX  loan, put the Plaintiffs in an extremely vulnerable financial position. Their monthly rent at the time of the {$85000.00} XXXX loan consummation was $ XXXX. \n\nWhat makes this situation even more alarming is the male Plaintiffs debt-to-income ( DTI ) ratio *prior to* the consummation of the {$85000.00} XXXX loan, which stood at an unsustainable 125 % far exceeding TILAs 41 % cap for loan approval. In addition to personal debts, the male XXXX had substantial business expenses, including weekly employee payroll, workmans compensation insurance, liability insurance premiums, and state and federal tax obligations. With such a high DTI ratio, the Plaintiffs were clearly financially overextended. Yet, M & T Banks underwriters failed to properly evaluate this critical factor. Approving a loan of this size, when the Plaintiffs were already overwhelmed by existing debt, was not just irresponsible ; it was a clear violation of prudent lending practices. The {$85000.00} loan should never have been approved, and M & T Banks failure to assess the Plaintiffs ' ability to repay the debt only worsened their already fragile financial situation. \n\nBefore the loan was consummated in XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs were already financially struggling. The weight of their existing debt should have been a significant red flag, making the approval of this loan by M & T Banks underwriters even more irresponsible. They were fully aware that the Plaintiffs were already carrying a heavy financial burden and would be unable to take on additional obligations, especially given their impending retirement and drastic reduction in income in the next XXXX years. Yet, M & T Bank proceeded with the loan approval, which knowingly placed the XXXX in a position where they were set up for failure when they retired in XXXX or XXXX. \n\nM & T Banks underwriters knew this. They understood that, with such a drastic reduction in income just around the corner, the Plaintiffs would not be able to sustain this XXXX loan for {$85000.00}. Yet, despite the obvious financial distress they were facing, the loan was approved without any meaningful assessment of their ability to repay. The banks underwriters were fully aware that the XXXX would likely default on this loan within a few years, and the outcome would ultimately be repossession of the XXXX  a vehicle the bank intended to reclaim once the Plaintiffs could no longer afford the payments. \n\nThis loan was not just unaffordable ; it was deliberately designed to fail. M & T Banks underwriters, fully aware of the XXXX financial situation, chose to ignore the clear red flags, approving the loan in favor of securing a 10 % down payment, knowing that default was inevitable. This was not a mistake or oversight ; this was a predatory loan, structured with the intent to repossess the RV in the near future once the Plaintiffs could no longer meet the terms. \n\nThis case is not just about violations of XXXX. It is about holding M & T Bank accountable for knowingly placing the XXXX in a situation where they could not succeed. This is a clear case of predatory lending, and there is an urgent need for legal recourse to address the harm done to this couple. \nDespite the XXXX clear intent to use the XXXX  as their home, M & T Banks underwriters misclassified the loan as a \" vehicle loan, '' intentionally bypassing essential protections under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1639h, and its implementing regulation 12 CFR 1026.43. These protections would have required M & T Bank to assess the Plaintiffs ' ability to repay the loan, per TILA, a step that could have easily revealed the loans unaffordability. \n\nThis is a textbook example of a predatory loan. The misclassification of the loan, combined with M & T Banks failure to properly assess the XXXX ' financial situation, demonstrates a complete disregard for their well-being. The Plaintiffs, who were on the cusp of retirement and about to rely on a fixed income, should never have been extended such a loanone that would leave them XXXX XXXX XXXX by the time the final payment was due, having lived solely on their combined Social Security income for XXXX of those XXXX  years. \n\nGROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES This misclassification, failure to assess the Plaintiffs ability to repay, and deceptive closing process represent not just a breach of legal obligations, but a clear injustice that has severely impacted the Plaintiffs ' financial stability and future. The loan, granted under unaffordable terms despite the Plaintiffs ' excellent credit and clear intentions to secure a home, has left them facing significant financial hardship. The Plaintiffs have lost all creditworthiness and given their age and reliance on Social Security income ; it is unlikely they will ever qualify for another loan. \nThe failure to adhere to the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) protections has effectively trapped the Plaintiffs in a situation with no viable financial options as they approach retirement. The loan, designed to fail from the outset, has not only stripped them of their financial security but has robbed them of the peace of mind and financial stability they had worked so hard to secure over their lifetimes. \n\nAs retirees with limited income sources, they now face a future devoid of meaningful financial opportunity. They will never be able to recoup the loss of their good credit, and the damage done by this predatory loan is immeasurable. This is why the Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages not just to hold M & T Bank accountable for its predatory and exploitative practices but to begin to make amends for the future that was stolen from them. The banks actions have destroyed their ability to move forward in life with the financial security they had rightfully earned, and punitive damages would serve as both a financial remedy and a necessary deterrent to prevent M & T Bank from engaging in such harmful practices in the future. \n\nThis case is not merely about compensating for the immediate financial losses suffered by the Plaintiffs ; it is about restoring the dignity and future security that M & T Bank knowingly took away. The Plaintiffs deserve justice for the irreversible harm caused by this predatory loan, and punitive damages will play a crucial role in acknowledging the banks willful misconduct and ensuring that they are made whole. \n\nA RECAP : This case presents a glaring opportunity to correct a clear injustice. The Plaintiffs, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, were misled and subjected to predatory lending practices that jeopardized their financial security and future. This is not simply a technical violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) ; its an egregious example of financial exploitation. The Plaintiffs ' ability to maintain good credit were put at risk for the sake of M & T Banks profits. It is imperative that this wrongdoing be addressed, and justice be served. \n\nTaking on this case offers the opportunity to secure justice for the Plaintiffs and challenge M & T Banks predatory practices. This loan was designed to fail from the start, with the bank knowingly setting the Plaintiffs up for default and repossession of the XXXX. The potential for legal recourse is significant, and this case is an urgent call for accountability. \n\nTILA mandates that lenders assess a borrowers ability to repay loans concerning a primary residence, which includes XXXX  used as a primary residence. This involves verifying income, future income, assets, reserves, calculating debt-to-income ratios, and evaluating the borrowers capacity to manage debt responsibly. M & T Bank and its underwriters failed to conduct this necessary assessment, which would have revealed the loans unaffordability, particularly given the Plaintiffs impending reliance on only Social Security income within XXXX years of the XXXX loan. Plaintiffs have no assets or reserves. \n\nAt the time of the loans consummation in XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs, both XXXX XXXX XXXX, were preparing for retirement and were about to become solely dependent on their combined Social Security income starting in XXXX or XXXX. Despite this clear financial reality, M & T Banks underwriters failed to assess the Plaintiffs ' ability to repay the loan over the next XXXX  years, which would have exposed the unsustainable nature of such a large debt after their retirement. Prior to the loans consummation, the Plaintiffs were already struggling with a debt-to-income ratio of 125 %, and the banks predatory lending practices only worsened their financial vulnerability. \n\nM & T Banks underwriters knowingly approved a loan that was unaffordable and set the Plaintiffs up for failure. Their primary concern appeared to be securing the 10 % down payment, without regard for the couples ability to repay the {$85000.00} XXXX loan beginning at their ages of XXXX. This was not an oversight but a deliberate choice to exploit the XXXX for profit, knowing that they would eventually default, and that repossession of the XXXX  was inevitable. \n\nThe loan was designed to fail. The underwriters disregarded basic lending principles and chose to exploit the Plaintiffs ' impending retirement, setting them up for default and eventual repossession of the XXXX. This predatory behavior exposes the banks priorities to secure a down payment and profit from an inevitable default, rather than ensuring the Plaintiffs financial well-being.\n\nThe closing process was equally questionable. The finance manager responsible for handling the closing distracted the Plaintiffs with irrelevant conversations, preventing them from fully reviewing and understanding the terms of the documents they were signing. The Plaintiffs were rushed through the paperwork, signing documents without any meaningful opportunity to review or understand what they were agreeing to. XXXX such document stated, You agree NOT to use the property as a dwelling, which directly contradicted the XXXX ' intention of using the RV as their primary home. \n\nLoan Estimate and Closing Disclosure per TILA To make matters worse, the XXXX were never provided a Loan Estimate XXXX  days after loan approval or before submitting their 10 % down payment. Additionally, they were never given a Closing Disclosure three days prior to consummating the loan, as required by TILA law. This failure allowed the inclusion of an absurd and misleading clause in the final documents You agree NOT to use the Property as a dwelling. \n\nM & T Banks misclassification of the loan, failure to assess the Plaintiffs ability to repay, and deceptive closing process have caused severe and lasting harm to these retirees. Despite excellent credit and clear intentions to secure a home, the Plaintiffs were granted a loan under unaffordable terms, leaving them in significant financial distress. The failure to follow TILA protections trapped them in a situation where they can not recover, especially as they approach retirement and rely solely on Social Security. \n\nThe loan, designed to fail from the outset, has destroyed their financial stability and peace of mind. With limited income and no ability to repay, the XXXXaintiffs will never be able to rebuild their credit, and their financial future is compromised. M & T Banks actions have robbed them of the financial security they had worked so hard for. \n\nThis case is not only about compensating for immediate harm but also about holding M & T Bank accountable for predatory practices that have permanently affected the Plaintiffs lives. The failure to adhere to basic lending standards, including ignoring their critical financial situation and the Plaintiffs ' debt-to-income ratio, underscores the banks misconduct. \n\nPlaintiffs seek punitive damages not only to address the immediate harm but to rectify the unjust future M & T Bank has stolen from them. This is a clear case of financial exploitation, and its essential that M & T Bank be held accountable for the irreparable harm caused by this predatory loan. \n\nKey Issues : 1. Misclassification of Loan : Despite the XXXX being intended as a primary residence, M & T Banks underwriters misclassified the loan as a \" vehicle loan, '' thereby bypassing TILAs requirements for primary residence loans and denying the Borrowers essential protections and disclosures. \n\n2. Failure to Assess Ability to Repay : M & T Banks underwriters failed to properly evaluate the Borrowers ' financial situation, despite their impending reliance solely on Social Security benefits. The loan 's terms were clearly unaffordable, and their debt-to-income ratio far exceeded TILAs acceptable limits. \n\n3. Fraudulent Conduct : M & T Bank misrepresented the loan contract by including an unauthorized clause that stated, You agree not to use the Property as a dwelling. This misrepresentation misled the Borrowers about the terms and the intended use of the XXXX. \n\n4. TILA Disclosure Violations : M & T Bank failed to provide the Borrowers with a timely Loan Estimate ( LE ) or Closing Disclosure ( CD ). The LE was provided over a year after loan consummation, and the critical term regarding the XXXX  restriction as a dwelling was never disclosed to the Plaintiffs until more than a year after closing.\n\n5. Predatory Lending Practices : M & T Bank knowingly approved an unaffordable loan, aware that the Borrowers would likely default. This conduct exemplifies deliberate financial exploitation, with the loan structured to fail. \n\nFinancial Impact : As a result of these actions, the Borrowers ' credit has suffered, and they are at risk of defaulting once they rely solely on Social Security income in XXXX and XXXX. The threat of repossession looms, leaving them homeless and with no viable financial options. \nThe loan, designed to fail from the outset, has destroyed their financial stability and peace of mind. With limited income and no ability to repay, the Plaintiffs will never be able to rebuild their credit, and their financial future is compromised. M & T Banks actions have robbed them of the financial security they had worked so hard for. \n\nRequested Legal Remedies : The Borrowers are seeking the cancellation of the loan, along with the return of all funds paid, including their 10 % down payment. Additionally, they seek legal recourse for the emotional distress, financial harm, and breach of fiduciary duty caused by these predatory actions. \nThis case represents a clear violation of consumer protection laws, and we believe it offers the potential for significant legal redress for the Borrowers. \nWe would greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please let us know if you would be open to discussing it further and taking on the case. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  residents XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-13T08:49:25.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"33584","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12460574","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"M&T BANK CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-03-13T08:32:00.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem after you declared or threatened to declare bankruptcy"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This XXXX loan, with a monthly payment they could not <em>sustain</em> <em>long</em>-<em>term</em>, was approved despite the Plaintiffs financial vulnerabilities. Despite having excellent credit and a 10 % down payment, the Plaintiffs were preparing for retirement in XXXX or XXXX, and their income was set to drop dramatically from approximately {$20000.00} per month to just {$3400.00} per month, before taxes, from their combined Social Security. They had no assets nor reserves."]},"sort":[5.649765,"12460574"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9561046","_score":4.556767,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Bank of America to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Bank of America.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Bank of America\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by\ntaking a deeper 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 fraudulent\ncriminals. 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 Bank of America to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They\nsell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains\na traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Bank of America, I found their communication ineffective, which\nfurther hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or abouXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fell victim to a multi-layered scam\noperation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm.\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) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule,\nlaw, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct,\nthat may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of\nAmericas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power\nthe 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\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 turn\na blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other\nwords, Bank of America 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 sense\nin 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\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 the\nevidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in 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.\nBank of Americas Position:\nBank of America wrote in a letter The amounts totaling of XXXX  in question that you listed in your\ncomplaint is an accumulation of several transactions that were sent to the three previously mentioned\nmerchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the transactions posted correctly\nto your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds.\nWe can only recommend that you contact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nRefuting Bank of Americas arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nBank of Americas position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation\nto protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed 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 Bank of Americas view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten\nlaws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight,\nwhen taking 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 Bank of America morally obligated\nto do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Bank of America encounter\nthe suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Bank of\nAmerica.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Bank of America carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had\na duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Bank of America, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some\nof the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything\nother than its own interests.\nIt is Bank of America here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that\nis to say, that Bank of America adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue\ngiven its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Bank of America that claims that the damages which\nI have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed\ndegree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX  capacity, experience,\nexpertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Bank of Americas indisputable overriding\npurpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a\nbalance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect\nconsumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set\nup a dichotomy 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.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud\nmay be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith 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 organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might\noccur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might\nbe at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent\nor 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 sets\nout systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point,\nit says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies\nthat are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised\npayments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud 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 transactions\nwhose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity\nof the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal\njustification.\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 customer\nto verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or\ndetected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nBank of America are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wideranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not\nsufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons\nby which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable\nand well-justified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence\nof such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers\nwho have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively\ncontributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  Bank of America 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 Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nI would also like to highlight the stark difference in how complaints are handled between Bank of America\nand XXXX XXXX Bank of America's handling of the situation was notably inadequate. They failed to properly\nacknowledge the issues I faced and did not provide the necessary support to recover my funds. In contrast,\nPNC Bank managed the situation with exemplary care. They not only acknowledged everything I had been\nthrough but also took proactive steps to assist me in recovering my funds. This level of customer service\nand attention to detail speaks volumes about XXXX XXXX commitment to their clients and their ability to\neffectively address and resolve issues.\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 endeavors undertaken in this\nconnection, 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 Bank of Americas business conduct\nwas insufficient 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. Bank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice \nthat is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers\nis inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result\nof 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)\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 Bank of America pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these\nthingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization 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.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank of America\nBank of America Corporate Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE\nSubjectXXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to XXXX XXXX XXXX: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nI have now reviewed your response dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  Based on my review, I do not believe you have acted fairly, let alone reasonably.\nThe investigatory processes appear to disfavour the victim, and there is a lack of knowledge of good industry practice as well as a lack of\ncare/compassion towards me as the customer.\nYour response is, to say the least, extremely inadequate. It is based on a blatantly incorrect understanding of what I have maintained.\nWhat amazes me is just how difficult it has been to find soundness in it. Your analysis, for instance, does not engage with the actual\nhistory of my account and a significant portion of related data that may contradict your position has been conveniently ignored.\nSeemingly, in arriving at a decision in relation to the issue I raised, no consideration was given to a) Duty of care in relation to the fact\nthat I am the victim of a financial crime and b) The responsibility that your institution hold to protect its clients from such crimes.\nI find your rejection incredibly offensive and perplexing. In all honesty, if you could provide me with any kind of a logical coherent\naccount that could reconcile the evident fact of the multiple warning signals as well as my susceptibility relating to this matter with the\nexistence of a sound anti-fraud program, then I would absolutely appreciate your point of view.\nGiven the variety of similar cases involving various types of scams, you should be acutely aware of this problem for society, but your\nsuperficial (and perhaps convenient) answer to it, simply put, is that blameless victims must be held accountable for their misfortune.\nBecause your argument presumably aims at self-protection rather than the truth, we can have no confidence that your rejection is\nultimately just, fair, or reasonable. It is time to adopt a more realistic, long-term attitude towards unavoidable scenarios of this kind,\nstarting from the justifiable assumption that such injured parties did not in the least contribute to (and thus certainly should not bear\nresponsibility for) their own victimisation.\nMisplaced Accountability:\nScam victims have relatively little freedom of reactivity; under such circumstances, they respond immediately, instinctively, and\ninvariably to the specific demands of the perpetrator. Being able to consciously refrain from reacting in such a way is extremely difficult\nand sometimes impossible. Unwittingly giving off signals that mark us as easy targets, is by no means the same as being grossly\nnegligent, in view of the increasingly sophisticated scams, which continue to be a pervasive problem in society.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimisation period; I was also relatively financially illiterate\nand very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nSince this time, having lost all of my savings to these fraudulent companies, I have learnt an enormous amount about the scope of these\ncriminal endeavours and also about how the financial services sector operates internationally.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast,\nmostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are\npeople who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping\nthe uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been\nlost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a perpetrator who grooms his victim whilst at the same time assaults him/her and\nprevents them from escaping.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must\ntherefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as\nthe one described herein.\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim:\nScrutiny shows that your claims are defective as an endeavour to thoroughly investigate the accessible facts; let alone as an attempt to\nportray an accurate image respecting the role of banks in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organisations scope of services, and\nvarious other details in connection with the duties that emerge out of our relationship, particularly in the context of the broader historical\ncircumstances. The emphasis that you have placed on the incredibly insufficient diligence checks as well as the inconsequential\nreferences and the unidimensional thinking, not only gives a skewed picture of my fundamental rights as your customer, but also\npresents a poor blueprint for understanding the issue discussed in a well-reasoned and objective manner, and an even poorer guide to\ndictate whether there has been, as suggested, wrongdoing on your part.\nThe amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your complaint is an accumulation of several transactions that\nwere sent to the three previously mentioned merchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the\ntransactions posted correctly to your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds. We can only recommend that you\ncontact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nConcerning the \"authorisation\" argument, it can be cast as an incompatibility between statements such as \"the transaction has been\nauthorised\" and \"the duty of care has been breached\". However, you have not shown that both statements are logically incompatible or\nimprobable with respect to each other. They are not mutually exclusive in the broader context.\nThe view that I have authorised the transaction and therefore fully liable is dangerously reductive--various aspects relating to the breach\nof the duty of care have been marginalised. Clearly there are more facts to be taken into account than at first appears.\nI notice that your account of the subject matter depends crucially on the supposed lack of obligation which is perhaps the most obscure\npoint in your argument. But regardless, your views give us reason to contemplate as well whether your societal role (which arguably\nrenders you capable of preventing plausibly foreseeable damages such as the one set forth herein) should trigger the appropriate moral\nobligations rather than unscrupulous beliefs which are inherently unjust, flagrantly unfair and merely conducive to your own self-interest\nand welfare. Likewise, you unknowingly oppose the emergent notion that I was no luckier in blindly placing faith in your\nestablishments competence than I would have been in not doing so.\nYou have blithely ruled out your obligation herein by undermining reasoning strategies aimed at justice and fairness; remarkably, you\nhave deliberately avoided the uncomfortable yet inevitable conclusion that in this instance you are to be held accountable, by narrowly\nholding that a financial institution's role in society is merely to \"act upon the customer's instruction.\" This sort of reductionist view has\nlong since been exposed as inadequate among world-leading, key financial regulatory authorities.\nIt is intuitively clear that you have not reckoned with the remarkable range of indispensable functions, which your organisation should\nperform for the community in a manner that is both stable and sustainable. It is moreover blatantly apparent, that, instead of being\nattuned more than ever to the importance of apprehending the pernicious influences of your idleness and non-intervention amidst an\ninexorable rise of financial fraud, you are unwarrantably hiding behind specious arguments based on thin assumptions, inadequate\nresearch, poor evidence, and sloppy reasoning. It is a whole lot better and far more effective to do the right thing, rather than the most\nprofitable one thereby compromising the integrity of your enterprise. I suggest that by following adequate protocols aimed at mutual\nbenefits (rather than satisfaction of personal goals), disadvantaged consumers will thrive rather than suffer, with a plethora of positive\nfeedback propagating far and wide as a result.\nI demand an investigation to bring to light additional relevant evidence that I am persuaded will support my view. It is hereby proposed\nthat your motivations may adversely affect reasoning through overreliance on a biased set of processes. As a substitute for sub-optimally\nrelying on a set of gross oversimplifications (which frustratingly and inexorably lead us to draw erroneous conclusions), we should,\ninstead, systematically account for the totality of the evidence  howsoever unpalatable  by even-handedly relying on complex and\nmultifactorial reasoning. The demand for sound reasoning is essentially a demand for ultimate explanation, and is linked with a complete\nunderstanding of the pronounced role that you played in permitting my injuries herein\nIn light of the above, it is patently clear that your train of thought is fatally flawed and totally unsupported. You have failed to come up\nwith positive evidence to support your claims, that is, to show beyond any reasonable doubt that irrespective of your conduct, my\nvictimization was an inevitable outcome. On the other hand, I have provided substantial evidence to support the claim that you could\nhave done more to safeguard my funds. Not only have you let me down, but you have also failed to admit that you could and should\nhave done better.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). Your\nresponse has limited the discussion narrowly to highly technical terms, and insufficient attention has been given to your organizational\ndysfunctions from a common-sense point of view. It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various riskbased\nexamination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous\noutcome. It is wildly incorrect to assume that you have exercised your duties by doing the minimum necessary. You have not exercised\nyour duties at all, rather, many of your underlying assumptions have simply gone unquestioned. Instead of being receptive to\nconstructive criticism and improving yourself, you ultimately seek to blame your customers thus absolving yourself of any\nresponsibility.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus\nviolate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. To the extent to\nwhich you were inconsistent therewith, you are liable for damages. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me as a customer and other entities\nassociated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability, identification and research\nof high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies\nand procedures.\nIt is incumbent upon financial institutions to carefully assess all information available about their customers, including vulnerability,\nneeds and customer type. There is a wide range of transactions which, although legitimate, should raise a red flag simply because they\nare inconsistent with the customers typical and ordinary activity. What constitutes reasonable grounds to flag transactions varies\naccording to the facts and circumstances of the particular matter being investigated and the effectiveness of the anti-fraud processes.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organisation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If\nyou don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable\nif 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 might occur as a result of fraud or\nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the\nindividual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm, these recommendations are established as a\ngeneral principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for\nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems\nare developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through\nauthorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that\nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples 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 transactions whose amount,\ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal\nmarket 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) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial\nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-19T23:38:35.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9561046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-19T23:25:30.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["B) organisations should have a process in place to <em>ensure</em> that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial\nactivity, <em>challenge</em> its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected"]},"sort":[4.556767,"9561046"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":9,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":9}]}},"product":{"doc_count":9,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","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":9,"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":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","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":"Problem after you declared or threatened to declare bankruptcy","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 enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":9,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":9}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":9,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":6},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":9,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":9}]}},"company":{"doc_count":9,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CORELOGIC INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"M&T BANK CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"MORTGAGE 1 INCORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":9,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"OH","doc_count":3},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":9,"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":5},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":9,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_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":{}}}