{"took":183,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":16,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7644515","_score":23.426151,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Received a promotional offer for 4 % interest rate on purchases made within the period, in XXXX, from Barclays. I called the company to verify my understanding of the offer ( that it applied to purchases made within the period, meaning that the interest rate would remain 4 % for the balance incurred within that period even after the promotion had ended ) and when they verified that was correct, I increased my credit limit and made a large purchase using the card. That has been the only charge on that card since then. \n\nI made regular payments and saw interest charges of ~ {$30.00} each month. On XX/XX/XXXX I received an email warning that the scheduled payment was lower than the minimum, even though I had changed nothing. Looking into it, I realized my interest charge had jumped from ~ {$30.00} to ~ {$190.00}. \n\nI called Barclays and they explained that my promotional period was over. When I explained that I had been explicitly told by a Barclay representative before making the large purchase that the promotion would apply to purchases made within the period instead of to balances within the period, the {$190.00} interest charge was comp 'd and I was told an investigation would be opened to review the account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I called again to ask about the status of that investigation. The first representative repeatedly gave me incorrect and conflicting information, telling me that the investigation was ongoing, concluded, and never occurred at different points in the conversation. When I instructed her to close my account because I don't do business with companies that lie so blatantly, I was transferred to another representative who was falsely informed by the first representative that I wished to close the account because I don't use it. \n\nThat second representative stated again that no investigation had ever been opened even though the {$190.00} interest charge had been comp 'd as promised during the initial call in XXXX. \n\ntl ; dr I paid ~ XXXX XXXX today to close an account with Barclays because they apparently will say anything they need to to get their customers to use their card or to stop complaining, no matter how false","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-04T20:23:40.000Z","issue":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"55411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7644515","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2023-10-04T19:56:33.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The first representative repeatedly gave me incorrect and conflicting information, telling me that the investigation was ongoing, <em>concluded</em>, and never occurred at different points in the conversation. When I instructed her to <em>close</em> my <em>account</em> because I don't do business with companies that lie so blatantly, I was transferred to another representative who was <em>falsely</em> informed by the first representative that I wished to <em>close</em> the <em>account</em> because I don't use it."]},"sort":[23.426151,"7644515"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18870141","_score":19.22702,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . for unlawfully closing my business checking account without notice, falsely alleging fraud and identity theft, and improperly freezing and withholding my funds.\n\nAccount and Promotional Background Wells Fargo sent me multiple promotional offers encouraging me to open a business checking account. The offer stated that I would receive an {$820.00} bonus if I deposited and maintained {$25000.00} for 60 days. \nAccount opened : XX/XX/XXXX Initial deposit : {$25000.00} Account status : In good standing at all times No overdrafts, suspicious transactions, or violations I fully complied with all stated promotional and account requirements. \n\nAccount Freeze and Closure Without Notice On XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo froze and closed my business checking account without prior notice. I was unable to log in and received a message stating that my credentials were XXXX. \n\nI did not receive any advance warning, request for verification, or opportunity to address any alleged concern before the account was closed. \n\nFalse Fraud and Identity Theft Allegations Wells Fargo later mailed a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, which I received on XX/XX/XXXX, claiming that I was a victim of fraud and identity theft. \n\nThis allegation is false. \n\nWhen I called the phone number listed on the letter : A Wells Fargo representative accused me of being the person who allegedly contacted Wells Fargo to report the account as opened in error I did not make such a call The representative stated that my {$25000.00} would remain frozen and that there was nothing he could do I called Wells Fargo again and spoke with another representative who : Refused to release my funds Stated that I might be able to retrieve my money at a branch I then contacted a Wells Fargo branch in XXXX, XXXX, and was told : I could not withdraw my funds The account closure was a business decision Wells Fargo would continue holding my money despite closing the account Improper Withholding of Funds Despite closing my account, Wells Fargo continues to hold {$25000.00} of my money with no timeline, documentation, or lawful explanation. \n\nAt no point was I : Provided evidence supporting the fraud or identity theft claim Allowed to verify my identity Given written justification for the continued withholding of my funds Unfair and Deceptive Practices Wells Fargos actions appear to constitute unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including : Inducing me to open and fund an account with a promotional offer Closing the account before the promotional period concluded Making false allegations of fraud and identity theft Using those allegations to justify withholding my funds Attempting to avoid payment of the {$820.00} promotional bonus Resolution Requested I respectfully request that CFPB require Wells Fargo to : XXXX. Immediately release and return my {$25000.00} XXXX. Provide a written explanation and evidence supporting the fraud and identity theft allegation XXXX. Correct any internal or external records falsely indicating fraud or wrongdoing on my part XXXX. Confirm that no negative reporting has been or will be made to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or any credit bureau XXXX. Honor and pay the {$820.00} promotional bonus, which Wells Fargo induced me to open the account to earn Wells Fargos continued withholding of my funds without notice, proof, or due process is unacceptable and requires regulatory intervention.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-20T20:56:54.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90247","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18870141","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-01-20T20:50:01.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At no point was I : Provided evidence supporting the fraud or identity theft claim Allowed to verify my identity Given written justification for the continued withholding of my funds Unfair and Deceptive Practices Wells Fargos actions appear to constitute unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including : Inducing me to open and fund an <em>account</em> with a promotional offer <em>Closing</em> the <em>account</em> <em>before</em> the promotional <em>period</em> <em>concluded</em> <em>Making</em> <em>false</em> allegations of fraud and identity theft Using those allegations"],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["<em>Closing</em> an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"sub_issue":["Funds not received from closed <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[19.22702,"18870141"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14646622","_score":11.79358,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I called an online supervisor ( name not remembered ) after becoming aware that the in-branch manager who waived {$10.00} account fees years ago ( exact date unknown ) and promised it would stay as such despite the stipulations, without my knowledge. This was after I no longer had a college account the in branch manager said it was waived. I was made aware eventually after my account went below {$500.00}. I sought to get back all the accrued fees, which amounted to {$110.00} at the time ( which became {$120.00} because o got another {$10.00} while waiting for the investigation [ see below ] ). The online supervisor offered {$20.00} courtesy credit and told me the rest of the fees would be investigated by the executive office. He did not say I would not get anything in a 12 month period. I was set up. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  the first investigation concludes ( case ID XXXX ), XXXX case manager XXXX from the executive office phone number XXXX, declined the rest, stating that by accepting {$20.00} credit, I couldnt get any of the rest reimbursed ( due to a XXXX period rule ). I was set up and angry. They claimed there was a recording of me accepting that I would not get anything in the future if I accepted the {$20.00}. Thats a lie. The online supervisor over the phone offered for the rest to be investigated and would be given back. I wouldnt have taken {$20.00} if it barred me from getting the rest of what Im owed. Even if it was true and they mentioned it, the fact I was offered the rest to be reviewed and I could get it back, which was manipulative and designed get me to accept the courtesy credit and not give me the rest of the amount. \n\nI found out during the course of speaking with someone else from front office ( name unknown ), my original complaint to the executive office wasnt documented correctly the first time ( due not mentioning I was offered the rest to be investigated and accepting wouldnt prevent that ), probably intentionally to not give the money back. \n\nThe second investigation was lead by XXXX phone number XXXX ( case ID XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX, after it was accurately documented, but because it was taking so long, I was about to get another {$10.00} fee and requested the fee be suspended while the investigation was on going and they agreed. The case was taken over by XXXX during this time since he originally controlled the first case. After the investigation concluded XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX, I was still charged another {$10.00} while waiting ( which made this even more infuriating ), bringing the total up to {$120.00} now. Stating I didnt have {$500.00} in the account, which I explained I wanted to wait for the investigation and move my money out. \n\nI called XXXX ( XXXX ) to explain and that I was told the {$10.00} would be suspended while the investigation was ongoing ( plus of the money ) and asked for manager. He rudely refused. I finally get a hold of his manager ( XXXX or XXXX forgot the name exactly ) a different way, and after long fight, I was able to claw back another {$30.00} for a total of {$50.00}. The manager told me if I accept the {$30.00}, that I accepted that I would get no other money in a XXXX period. I felt being hoodwinked to accept the amount because they refused to give the rest and I did accept it, however during the recording, I verbally stated for the record, I did not accept them using this as a way to not give me the rest of my money. I only got {$50.00} in total. Im still owed {$70.00}, for {$120.00}. \n\nI was given a new case ( ID XXXX ) and case manager automatically XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX ( apparently because there were so many complaints they wanted another person to review ), XXXX whos direct phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX. I explained everything from set up and lead their other money would be investigation and refunded, not being disclosed, and given partial amounts under conditions I wouldnt receive the rest, additional {$10.00} and the rest of it. I also disclosed I would be closing my checking account ( which has come to pass ), and that Im filing complaints with the Federal and State regulators, other agencies, and bureaus ( including negative reviews ).\n\nI called the Consumer Financial Protection ( XXXX ) XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bureau, and was explained that free checking accounts can not have minimum balance fees ( besides the fact of the false promise of investigating and reversing previous fees with courtesy credit that was misleading with their 12 month investigating rule ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  I called the case manager XXXX to correct, for the record, its {$70.00} Im owed, not {$80.00}. The fees totaled {$120.00}, not {$130.00}. I was going off of memory before. He insisted that the college account was transferred and I was notified. Which I told him is not true and I had my fees waived by the in branch office manager ( and said something factually not true. I was not XXXX in XXXX when the transition occurred ). Then lied about the first supervisor did tell me I would get no other fee after accepting the {$20.00} fee and didnt insinuate I would have the rest fees looked at. I corrected him on each point and told him it was not true, and while he was beginning to tell me it has nothing to do with the reason for their refusal ( probably to reiterate the lie I was told my account would transition after ignoring numerous times what I said the in branch manager said years ago ), I cut him off and told him I would not be arguing about this and its not the facts and true and hung up the phone. \n\nI have exhausted all avenues with the business directly to attempt to receive the rest of the fees Im owed ( I also got a {$35.00} overdraft fee which I assume is legal, so not pursuing that fee charge ). Beyond negative reviews, Im making formal complaints with the State, other agencies, closed my account, and moving to a bank that values my business, doesnt lie twist and insinuate to ensnare me so not have to give me my money back. Ive refuse to do business with the Wells Fargos Checking business, after the treatment I received after being a long term customer.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-14T18:24:50.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90805","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14646622","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-07-14T17:58:11.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I also disclosed I would be <em>closing</em> my checking <em>account</em> ( which has come to pass ), and that Im filing complaints with the Federal and State regulators, other agencies, and bureaus ( including negative reviews )."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[11.79358,"14646622"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6192872","_score":9.450656,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"San Diego County Credit Union ( SDCCU ) \" charged off '' our account at {$120.00}, and did not notify us. We have sent several certified letters and had a dozen phone calls with them defending our case.. to no avail. \n\nWhat is especially notable here is that : 1. They lost our first dispute letter to them in XX/XX/XXXX 2. They refused our 2nd letter in XX/XX/XXXX ( sending it back to us unopened ) 3. They have on record returned mail from us, proving we never received any written communication from them regarding a charge off. \n4. Our 3rd dispute ( sent certified mail ) was recorded as delivered in XX/XX/XXXX, and after almost 2 months, they have not responded to us, as they verbally promised and are legally bound to uphold a 30-day turn-around for all despite responses. \n5. between the 1st and 2nd dispute, we worked with our credit repair agency because the reportings were false, and we assumed they would be easily deleted. \n\nMore Explanation : In XXXX, during the height of the pandemic, we lost work, and decided to consolidate our resources and invest in creating a better financial future for ourselves. This resulted in making agreements with creditors to pay off accounts, making lower payments on our mortgage and hiring a credit repair agency to help us with any outstanding debts and wrongfully reported accounts. We became very serious about creating a solid future for our family, and it seemed to be working. \n\nHowever, we were living in a very small condo at the time, and the health-risk of covid in our neighborhood, and in such close proximity to neighbors was a definite threat. So, we made the decision to travel to Florida and rent a farm house for our health, safety, and to have peace of mind and build income for our family. \n\nWe had all of our mail forwarded to us at this time. We continued to work with our credit repair agency and pay off any old debts, and clear up any wrongful reportings. We stopped using SDCCU, as we were not local, and they really make communications difficult. They don't even help with online banking over the phone. We left a little bit of money in that account ( just in case ). And, we did not close the account because we didn't know if we would be back in XXXX XXXX. \n\nNote : Since our mail was forwarded, and we were just renting am airbnb, there would be no need to change our address with SDCCU. We received our mail every other week from the mail service that we used. There were several pieces of banking mail that we never did receive, including a credit card that we ordered. this particular credit card did have fraudulent charges because someone intercepted it. WE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA THAT SDCCU HAD SEBT US ANY MAIL, AND WE NOW ASSUME IT WAS RETURNED TO THEM BECAUSE UPON SPEAKING TO THEM, THAT WAS VERIFIED. DURING OUR STAY IN FLORIDA, WE ALSO GOT LOCKED OUT OF OUR ONLINE BANKING ACCOUNT AND ATTEMPTED TO RECEVE HELP LOGGIN IN OVER THE PHONE TO NO AVAIL. \n\nThere were multiple times during this situation with SDCCU when they could have made good with our accounts and completely remedied the situation prior to reporting us as a charge-off. \n\n1. They could have called, emailed or texted.. Because they have those forms of communication for both of us, and we continue to receive electronic communications from them 2. They could have admitted that their returned mail indicated we did not receive their US postal service communication 3. They could have acknowledged our dispute and considered all of the details of our case 4. They could have been within the legal timeframe of responding ... in fact, they could have responded in the first place. \n\nThis incorrect mark on our credit reports is preventing very necessary career advancement and funding for housing. It is unjust and a complete mistake on so many levels. \n\nWe only found out about this mistake through our credit repair/ monitoring company. We have never had a charge-off our mark like this on our credit without being warned. There have always been phone calls. In fact, our other banking institutions send texts whenever they suspect wrongful activity or if the account gets to zero. \n\nHere are dates and details : XX/XX/XXXX : ( This is the day we discovered the problem ). Spoke with XXXX in \" credit disputes department at SDCCU. '' she told us exactly how to write a dispute, and we completed and mailed the dispute. \n\n( long wait... working through credit repair agency, XXXX : Spoke with XXXX and XXXX, XXXX for 3+ hours asking him to investigate what ever happened to our first dispute.. he would not find our original calls or letter, and told me that it was never possible to speak with someone in the Credit Dispute department XXXX We concluded that for whatever reason, we were lied to on our XXXX call. XXXX told me that SDCCU had on our record that they had retuned mail from us. This made me confident that our case was clean, and clear because they could see that we were never informed. \n\nXXXX : Spoke with XXXX again to ask what else we could do to remedy this, and was told that they would look favorably on us if we paid the {$120.00} and to send Certified mail. We sent certified mail which was denied by them and sent back to us.. we received it weeks later XXXX : For good measure, we sent another certified letter that day. making 2 in 2 days. \n\nXXXX : We had a local friend in XXXX XXXX pay our bill in cash for us at the location. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : our mail was recorded as delivered to SDCCU XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with XXXX and XXXX and was told that the mail had not yet been picked up by anyone at the bank. No one had seen or opened it. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with XXXX and XXXX who said there was still no info on the dispute letter they received 7 days prior. XXXX could not answer why we were not emailed, called or texted regarding our alleged charge-off before it became a problem, and that she would email me that day with more info on that. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX, an assistant manager called, claiming that he really wanted to help us with this situation, and that if we could repeat our story he would personally go to the department and make sure it was taken care of fairly. XXXX also said we should have been notified electronically regarding this problem prior to it becoming a problem. XXXX acted like he cared, and assured me that this would be taken care off in the XXXX time period, and implied he would call back and/or personally help. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX who assured us that they were working on it. \n\nAfter this we ended our agreement with the credit repair agency, and learned how to speak on our own behalf, sending accurate disputes to the credit repair agencies. While SDCCU has failed to inform or communicate with us once again as per their investigation or findings, they \" apparently ' \" verified '' it with the credit bureaus. Once again, completely removing the \" community '' principles on which their business is allegedly built. Not to mention they going against proper laws on credit reporting. \n\nWe have gone over and above to communicate clearly with them and explain our situation, defending that we are in the right. They have ignored truth, lacked communication and created a credit trap for us that is so extremely detrimental to our family ... over {$120.00}?? All during a pandemic? When we have evidence that we were working on our credit, paying off bills and being very mindful of our financial relationships. When we clearly had spurt mail forwarded, and they clearly have returned mail from us. This would have never occurred had we received communication from them in the first place We are attaching : a receipt for credit repair notarized agreement for forwarded mail ( 3 attachments here ) photos of a returned mail from SDCCU our first dispute from XX/XX/XXXX our second dispute letters from XX/XX/XXXX 6","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-01T13:07:49.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"326XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6192872","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2022-11-10T12:01:54.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This resulted in <em>making</em> agreements with creditors to pay off <em>accounts</em>, <em>making</em> lower payments on our mortgage and hiring a credit repair agency to help us with any outstanding debts and wrongfully reported <em>accounts</em>. We became very serious about creating a solid future for our family, and it seemed to be working. \n\nHowever, we were living in a very small condo at the time, and the health-risk of covid in our neighborhood, and in such <em>close</em> proximity to neighbors was a definite threat."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[9.450656,"6192872"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4796739","_score":8.381924,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Continental Finance : Dispute In XX/XX/XXXX, I, XXXX XXXX, entered into a financial agreement with Continental Finance, to receive a Reflex credit card with a {$500.00} credit limit. The agreement included use of my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account for all XXXX account payments. As is typical with these financial arrangements, I provided Continental Finance with my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account and routing number. ( Copy of statements dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX are included in this file. ) Almost immediately, issues arose regarding the access to current and accurate information provided in XXXX online website, when in XX/XX/XXXX, I made a {$300.00} online payment on that account. When I referred to the account the next day, 1 day before the payment was due, there was no evidence I had made the payment arrangement. ( This was a recurring issues ). Worried that I might be charge a late fee, I made another {$300.00} online payment. A few days later {$600.00} was extracted from my account, well in excess of the balance due. In telephonic communication with a XXXX representative who instructed me that the only way to correct this was to arrange a conference call from the office of a Credit Union representative. The call was made from the office of XXXX XXXX, a Senior Service Specialist at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in California. The issue was resolves and {$300.00} was returned to my account. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the credit limit on the card was raised to {$1000.00}. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX each XXXX payment was made on time without incident from with funds accessed via XXXX XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I reported the loss of my XXXX credit card account number ending # XXXX. Although, XXXX would later claim ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that it opened a second account number ending # XXXX, I never received that card nor was a charge ever made on that card. My last charge on a XXXX issued card was on XX/XX/XXXX, on account number ending # XXXX. I never requested another card or account and I never received one. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I made a {$170.00} payment on the account which XXXX failed to retrieve. Subsequently, I was denied online access to my account preventing me from evaluate the issue. On XX/XX/XXXX th XXXX, I called to find out what the was the problem. Nothing about my account activities prevented access to the funds available in the account. When I had attempted to access statements via XXXX online website there was no statements available. The statements link at the top of the web page possess no statement access. I requested that I be sent paper copies of the previous 4 months ' worth of statements and the Reflex rep said that I would be provided with those. That never happened. \n\nI would only have online access to account information from XX/XX/XXXX th until XX/XX/XXXX during which time I made 3 additional payments. {$210.00} on XX/XX/XXXX th, {$150.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and {$150.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. According to the online web page that should have brought my account balance down to {$310.00}. My only interest at this stage was pay off the account as quickly as my resources became available and close the account. Once I became aware that online access to my account was once again blocked, I went to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and I had the credit union rep, XXXX XXXX, make a conference call to Reflex. Ms. XXXX led the conversation. The XXXX representative who when pressed by MsXXXX XXXX, would only identify himself as XXXX. XXXX would go one to claim that retrieval of the two recent payments I had made on XX/XX/XXXX ( {$150.00} ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) had been denied. He then said my account activity appeared fraudulent and that I would have to pay my entire balance of {$640.00} before I would be granted access to my account. I told him that the reason for my call was on that date was to prevent any late charges to my account with the next payment being due on the 2nd. I attempted to arrange a payment on the spot to prevent any additional charges but was denied. I told him making payment in full, but obviously I had become highly motivated to end my relationship and close the account. This disturbing conversation only elevated that mitivate. I told him the account would be paid as soon as was possible. At the end of the conversation, I asked MsXXXX XXXX to recite my account number to XXXX. XXXX claimed that the account information she gave him was not the information he had. The same number that XXXX to access the funds for payments from XX/XX/XXXX all the way up through closure of the XXXX account number ending in # XXXX in XXXX of XXXX. The same XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account that I still maintain. Nothing about that account has changed. I have enclosed in this file a copy of the account statement dated XX/XX/XXXX as well as a copy of the statement dated XXXX. If fact, while Continental Finance was having so much trouble gaining access to the 5 payments made between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX different entities with the EXACT same information, had no trouble accessing funds, they were uninterrupted for payments made on those accounts during the same EXACT period. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A total of 7 payments made between XXXX XXXX to XXXX  XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and XXXX Insurance XXXX I have enclosed 7 screenshots of payments made to XXXX XXXX drawn on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I have included another 7 screenshots drawn on the same account with the same EXACT information by XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and XXXX in XXXX, XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Each of those screenshot display date of payment, amount of payment, account balance and entity receive funds. I think its highly likely that XXXX XXXX closed the account ending # XXXX and opened the alternate account ending in # XXXX despite the absence of my interest, it did so in error. The account information that what used to open the account in XX/XX/XXXX and remains the same to this day was altered, intentionally or otherwise, that information remains the same to this day. As for the lost debit card, that card number is inconsequential and irrelevant. The account number and routing number is the information that provide access to funds in this account. That is the information used by every other company to receive their payments. It also bears mentioning that I have 4 other credit card accounts. I have never made a single delinquent payment and each of those accounts are either at, or very near a {$0.00} balance. I also have 3 bank accounts that Ive never been charged a single overdraft fee without ever paying for the service. \n\nAfter my disturbing conversation with the rude, provocative and offensive XXXX representative XXXX and his attempt to bully me, I received regular XXXX account statement. My balance had gone from the {$640.00} figure XXXX had quoted me to {$730.00}. This would be the last correspondence I would receive from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX end of XX/XX/XXXX, after I had filed a dispute against Continental Finance with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I had a certified draft for {$250.00} and sent that check to XXXX via XXXX mail U.S. Postal service. I repeated this procedure on XX/XX/XXXX th, XXXX ( XXXX ), then again on XX/XX/XXXX ( {$230.00} ), for a total of {$730.00}. On each envelope was my address. The same address Ive maintained since XXXX, XXXX. The total cost for Priority mail delivery {$41.00}. After each payment, I waited for return correspondence. It never came. I concluded that my business with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX be over. ( All documentation is provided in this file ). \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, while checking my credit report, I found out that my account had not been closed. Continental Finance was maintaining that I continued to have, an outstanding balance had missed 3 consecutive payment and was being penalized each month financially as well as the damage being done to my report. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I filed a dispute with the Consumer Financial Credit Bureau ( document enclosed ), I described my experience and on XX/XX/XXXX the Consumer Financial Credit Bureau received a response from Continental Finances  Senior Vice President, XXXX XXXX and the case was marked closed. Several days later ( XX/XX/XXXX, I received a copy of that response, the first direct correspondence I had received from Continental Finance since XXXX of XXXX. The response, from Ms. XXXX, was filled with inaccuracies and factual errors. ( a copy of document is included ). In it, she claims, on XX/XX/XXXX, that I reported a lost card, which is true. She also claims that a replacement account ending # XXXX was opened to replace account ending # XXXX. Which I was never aware of. At the time I notified Continental Finance of the lost card I never requested another account be opened nor did I request a new card be sent to me. I never received one. My last charge on a XXXX credit card was on XX/XX/XXXX account number ending # XXXX, for {$20.00}. Next, she claimed the payment I submitted on XX/XX/XXXX was denied as unauthorized payment. It bares noting, it is at this points each subsequent payment made over the next 2 1/2 months ( 4 ), were also denied. The information necessary to access and receive funds on this account had not changed. Account number and routing number remained the same. Having been issued a new debit card with a different number was inconsequential and irrelevant. Simply stated, Continental Finance failed to enter the proper information. Period. It had nothing to do with my activity on the XXXX XXXX account. My account access was then suspended from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX then claims I stopped payment on the account because of fraud. This is false. I NEVER made that request to XXXX XXXX. I never said that nor would I have reason to do so and there is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, each of the banking statements, covering that same period of time, ( XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) In my experience, banking institutions charge fee for this service. XXXX XXXX charges? There is not a single instance that suggests that Continental Finance had attempted to access funds in this account and had been denied. Nothing. I have never found it necessary to stop payment on anything in many years and this circumstance is no exception. \n\nYet, during the same period, ( XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX ) under the same circumstance, with the exact same information Continental Finance is in possession of, XXXX  XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and XXXX accessed 7 the funds for 7 different payments ( documents enclosed ). I have also, reluctantly, enclosed my entire banking statements for the months of XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Most of this information is not the business of Continental Finance, but in the interest of resolving this matter, these documents show 0 activity associated with Continental Finance. Fortunately, XXXX XXXX, are most credible financial institutions, are in the business of serving their customers, consistently providing them with accurate providing accurate and timely information and supports. Continental Finance has set an extremely low bar. \n\nNext, Ms. XXXX claims, XXXXontinental Fianance, has suddenly and conveniently forgotten how to deliver mail. She claims, on XX/XX/XXXX, Continental Finance received return mail on my account. While it is conceivable, though dubious, that a mail carrier can insert a piece of mail to a mailbox, in a bank of boxes, in a senior building, when that happens the receiver of that mail would leave it out to be retrieved by their neighbor, but, according to Ms. XXXX, it happened again in XX/XX/XXXX. This premise is ridiculous, particularly since it was in XX/XX/XXXX, that same month, that I received the last original statement, indeed, the last correspondence from until late XX/XX/XXXX after filing my dispute. This defies logic and establishes a definitive pattern of behavior that only serves Continental Finances interest. \n\nConsequently, Continental Finance, used this claim to justify the decision to withhold all access to my account information, online and by mail, all while adding charges, penalties and fees to my account and destroying my credit. The letter from Ms. XXXX, then goes on to claim, falsely, that on XX/XX/XXXX th, XXXX my address was updated. That never happened and is intended to mislead. My address has never changed. In fact, every piece of mail Ive ever received from Continental Finance, has the SAME address. I received, along with Ms. XXXX letter, on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, copies of all back dated statements from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. On every one of those statements is the same address. \n\nEvery delinquent notice and each of the 3 priority mail envelopes I sent certified checks in XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, all have without deviation, the same address. My current address. More than 40 pieces of mail. To suggest they were unable to deliver correspondence to me via mail defies credulity and is entirely self-serving. There isnt a single other instance where anyone, financial entity or otherwise, has claimed to have sent mail to me at this address and had it returned. Not once. This is false. If evidence exists that proves that mail was delivered to me on either of those occasions, something other than someone word, I havent seen it. Id be happy to examine it if it exists. Something like a returned envelope, a post marked envelope with my actual accurate address, though not definite, would be a start. \n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX, when Continental Finance claimed to have closed account ending # XXXX and opened account ending # XXXX, I had online access to my account information for exactly 30 days form XX/XX/XXXX, until XX/XX/XXXX. I received one original mailed statement on XX/XX/XXXX. I received 0 mailed statements on my account until XX/XX/XXXX, all while being charged late fee, returned check fees interest fees, annul renewal fees returned check fees etc ... without ever being provided any information and despite the fact nothing about my address or account information had changed except for a debit card number which has no relevance to these matters Any and all claims to the contrary are false. \n\nIn the letter I received in XX/XX/XXXX, from MsXXXX XXXX she wrote Since the guaranteed payments toward your account satisfied the {$730.00} balance, we have removed the hold on your account. I interpreted that to mean the account balance had been paid in full and that it would be closed which charged was what was my intention since XXXX of XXXX. However, on XX/XX/XXXX I receive a new, original statement, placing my balance at {$600.00}. This figure was update to {$340.00} in XXXX. As of the most recent statement/demand letter the figure now stands at {$510.00}. To have made any payments on this balance would be to acknowledge this debt. I do not. This current debt has been entirely manufactured all the back to the {$39.00} late fee in XX/XX/XXXX to the {$28.00} returned check fee in XX/XX/XXXX and all the interest payments that did not reflect the five payments I made between XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX of XXXX, the last month I received a statement from Reflex. XXXX was never without the information to access those funds and their failure to process the proper information when they changed my account is entirely their own. I have no intention of being bullied into paying for its incompetence or intentional deception. Any single one of these failures individually could be construed as mistake, taken together, collectively, they appear as deliberate, malicious, and fraudulent. The net result of these activities all serves Continentals Financial interests. \n\nMoreover, every charge administered between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, when I received no information whatsoever from which to respond proactively and effectively are similarly invalid. This account should have been concluded in XX/XX/XXXX again in XX/XX/XXXX and then again in XX/XX/XXXX. The most recent charges include an annual Fee of {$99.00} billed to my account in XX/XX/XXXX. I have been dragged through this debacle for 1 1/2 years and this experience has been startling, painful, stressful, and costly in time and resources. For the final time this account needs to be closed, my balance cleared, and my credit restored. On a final note. The statements Ive provide in this file are of two types : The originals that were sent during designated months and the copies sent in bulk. Its an important distinction. Failure to make this distinction might blur the lines regarding Continental Financials ' egregious withholding of information needed to administer this account properly. \n\nThanks, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nIn conjunction with the delivery of this correspondence, I have renewed my dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding this account. Hopefully, with new leadership, the agency will impose a greater degree of oversight toward financial institutions exhibiting these types of predatory behaviors.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-10-27T14:53:35.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"94806","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4796739","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Continental Finance Company, LLC","date_received":"2021-10-10T20:44:37.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I told him <em>making</em> payment in full, but obviously I had become highly motivated to end my relationship and <em>close</em> the <em>account</em>. This disturbing conversation only elevated that mitivate. I told him the <em>account</em> would be paid as soon as was possible. At the end of the conversation, I asked MsXXXX XXXX to recite my <em>account</em> number to XXXX. XXXX claimed that the <em>account</em> information she gave him was not the information he had."]},"sort":[8.381924,"4796739"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2533745","_score":8.096866,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"AES has continuously evaded and denied my requests to provide factual evidence that supports their claim that I requeste d nine ( 9 )  deferments and forbearances on  nine ( 9 )  different occasions ; simply because they are lying and no such evidence exists. I never requested any such changes to this account and most definitely not on  nine ( 9 )  different occasions. They applied these changes for the purposes of extending the time it would take for these tradelines to fall off of my credit report, and possibly for financial advantages.   This is pure speculation until a real investigation is conducted, but I believe  AES  is somehow illegally profiting from ensuring this debt remains open. Consider this : I have never paid them and never will based on the circumstances outlined in my dispute letters i.e. I am a victim of the    XXXX    financial crisis. They also know that I will always dispute this debt and that the statute of limitations is expired-time barred debt.   So why would  AES  intentionally keep this account open knowing these facts instead of simply closing it out?   Why would AES willfully change the reported information from defaulted or delinquent to current or good standing when technically since I never made any payments the default status was accurate?   Of course, I made several formal complaints and told them to remove all negative information from my credit report. But why would  AES  agree to do that when they knew that I would never agree to pay any portion of this debt? I know the answer is certainly not because AES cares about the financial wellbeing of their borrowers.   It makes no sense for a business who is well aware of all of these facts to pursue this outrageous debt and alter and conceal delinquency/default dates right before it charges off. Unless of course there exists a financial benefit in doing so. It may be possible that by falsifying a forbearance, AES is reimbursed monthly in the amount equal to the insanely high monthly payments. In other words, its possible that AES is deliberately reporting disinformation that the account is in forbearance-which gives the false notion that I agree to pay once I can afford payments, in order to receive an IOU or tax break.   Its also possible that  AES  is receiving this financial incentive from the very state that clearly has a conflict of interest- Pennsylvania  .  The PA Attorney General refused to conduct a thorough investigation or even attempt to resolve the issue based on their relationship with  AES  and the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agenc y ( PHEAA ) . Whatever the case  may be, AES  is clearly benefitting financially from engaging in their illicit activities and they are receiving protection from some other entity who is either wittingly conspiring and aiding in these fraudulent activities, or AES is defrauding their protector.   AES is a business, and the fundamental purpose of a business is to generate profit. It is illogical to think that a business would purposely do something  ( m ultiple times ) that would cause detriment to their profit i.e. wasting resources in pursuing a debt that will never be recovered.   In theory, a collection agency could attempt to get payment from you endlessly, but in practice, that doesnt happen. Eventually, the collection efforts will cost more than any payment they will receive, so it doesnt make business sense to continue to try to collect the debt.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   In some states, if you pay any amount on a time-barred debt or even promise to pay, the debt is 'revived. ' This means the clock resets and a new statute of limitations period begins. It also often means the collector can sue you to collect the full amount of the debt, which  may  include additional interest and fees.     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  So, what benefit would AES hav e in  pursuing this debt? Why would AES apply fictitious forbearances on the account? It is possible that falsifying a deferment or forbearance would imply that I promise to pay at a more suitable time. That implication could in theory reset the clock for the statute of limitations, thus allowing  AES  to file suit if I refuse to pay. Further, applying such changes to this debt would reflect on their accounting records as valid/in good standing/paid as agreed, thereby avoiding the negative impact a charge off or closed account would have on their business.   Its common for consumers to default or fall behind on their payments, and in those cases the creditor and collection agency do everything in their powers to inflict as much emotional and financial distress onto the consumer until they pay. Now, the tables have turned and rest assured I will see to it that AES is held responsible. It was the lender  (   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ) who defaulted, failed to pay, neglected their financial obligation, and neglected their fiduciary duty. Should the consumer be held responsible for their wrong doings? Are there no laws that protect the consumer against financial giants who abuse the system like this? The cause and effect for this situation is no different than that of the mortgage crisis, the only difference is that were dealing with a private student loan.   AES needs to come to terms with the fact they made the mistake of servicing a predatory loan that was breached by the lender. They need to come to terms that this is their loss and are only making matters worse for themselves. I refuse to take responsibility for the lenders financial hardship and refuse to pay for something that I was cheated out of, something that I was promised and did not receive. It is the lenders own fault for their bankruptcy and for leaving hundreds of students feeling helpless and hopeless because they were denied what they were promised, the opportunity to succeed by way of financial support. It is unfair and illegal for  AES  to place this burden upon me or any other consumer and pursue a debt that they know full well they shouldnt.   Additionally, everyone seems to be missing  one  of the most important facts ;  XXXX  already deleted all  four ( 4 ) tr adelines from my credit report as a result of their investigation in  XX/XX/XXXX . Is this not relevant? How can  XXXX  conclude that these tradelines should be completely deleted and are invalid, but not  XXXX  or  XXXX  when this account was disputed in the same manner? Further,  XXXX  is reporting that  one ( 1 ) of the four ( 4 ) tr adelines is closed/paid. Credit information must be the same across all credit reporting agencies per FCRA. This should be sufficient evidence to investigate the validity of these tradelines and come to the same conclusion as  XXXX .   This issue calls upon experts in the fields of taxation, securities, bankruptcy, and consumer protection. It is obvious AES is involved in illegal activities i.e. violating consumer protection laws, falsifying documents, reporting disinformation, etc. and this fact must not be ignored. AES, PHEAA,  XXXX , and  XXXX  should all be scrutinized and investigated for potentially engaging in financial crimes that defraud consumers and the government. I will continue to place pressure on AES,  XXXX , and  XXXX  with the intention of forcing them to authorize the removal of all tradelines from my credit reports ; unless I am explicitly told by all investigating authorities and/or receive a judgement indicating that I am indeed responsible for this debt and obligated to pay.  <P/> DISCLAIMER : I WILL NEVER AGREE TO PAY ANY PORTION OF THE DEBT YOU CLAIM I OWE DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED IN MY PREVIOUS DISPUTE LETTERS. ANY ATTMEPT TO COLLECT THIS DEBT WILL BE A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FCRA AND FDCPA. THIS DEBT WILL BE FOREVER IN DISPUTE UNTIL ALL TRADELINES ARE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM MY CREDIT HISTORY SO AS NOT TO IMPACT MY CREDIT REPORT OR SCORE IN ANY WAY. IF YOU ATTEMPT TO TRANSFER THIS ALLEGED DEBT TO COLLECTIONS, THEY WILL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY THAT THIS DEBT IS IN DISPUTE AND PURSUANCE IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS","date_sent_to_company":"2017-06-16T06:58:11.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"42223","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2533745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AES/PHEAA","date_received":"2017-06-16T02:39:51.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Need information about your loan balance or loan terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In other words, its possible that AES is deliberately reporting disinformation that the <em>account</em> is in forbearance-which gives the <em>false</em> notion that I agree to pay once I can afford payments, in order to receive an IOU or tax break.   Its also possible that  AES  is receiving this financial incentive from the very state that clearly has a conflict of interest- Pennsylvania  ."]},"sort":[8.096866,"2533745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3377745","_score":7.541582,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted XXXX  XXXX  XXXX/XXXX  XXXX XXXX after waiting almost 60 business days and still not receiving a response to my Error Resolution Letter. XXXX XXXX stated he would have a supervisor contact me within 24 hours to discuss the issues. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX ( not a supervisor, ) who is in the Ombudsman Dispute Department, in the Executive Office at XXXX   XXXX XXXX, asking about my issues. \nBefore I had a chance to talk I was reprimanded for calling their investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was told all communication must go through XXXX. I explained to the representative, I had made many attempts to work with XXXX, and even called the Consumer Ombudsman department twice, whos representatives discounted the call twice. Either these employees are not trained to answer my specific questions, or just plain rude. \n\nI almost did not answer XXXX call because the was no caller ID naming XXXX, and because I get so many Scam calls, I usually do not answer the phone for unanimous callers. Today I received another call from XXXX, this time letting me know XXXX is working on my Error Letter. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ) XXXX sent a letter, which I received on Monday the XXXX, answering my error resolution letter. XXXX call did not make sense until she said the reason for her call was new information was received, and she was calling to state it was being reviewed in the Dispute Department. When I asked, \" Where did the information come from ''? She stated it was the information I just sent in. Again, I am working with someone who did not know what they were talking about. After a few more questions I realized, the \" new '' information she spoke of was the complaint I had filed with the CFPB # XXXX. \n\nI explained, this is the same information I sent to XXXX, and waited 2 months for a response, when per the CFPB 30 business days is the allowed period to respond, + a 15-day extension if within the 30 days notice is sent with a valid reason for the extension. Instead, I was sent a notice stating XXXX needed a 30-day extension, ( even though CFPB states no more than 15 days, ) it was outside the 30 day dispute period, and without a valid reason. XXXX replied she is required to call when a dispute is filed. I asked her about the credit report mistakes discussed in our previous call on XX/XX/XXXX, and all she could say is we are working on it. I mentioned it took 2 months to reply to my first dispute and asked how long would it take to respond to the Credit Report Disputes, and she said she didn't know. Based on this discussion, and my desire to have my credit report corrected, I plan to file another complaint with the CFPB for the credit issues, and the carelessly put together response from XXXX to my \" Error resolution letter. \n\nPlease read the response XXXX subsequently made on XXXX, ( attached, ) and come to your own conclusion, why would a one-page response take 2 months to accomplish. It really didn't address any of my concerns, and what is really humorous is the letter is filled with misconstrued facts and conclusions. \n\nThe correspondence included an \" Applied Funds Table, '' along with pages of XXXX payment history, ( which I already had. ) As I reviewed the payment history ( supplied by XXXX, ) it became clear, I had been supplied with an internal form, based on the \" heading of each column. '' Such as \" XXXX '' which was not defined for the average consumer to understand. By comparing the payment history supplied by XXXX, to the actual history XXXX XXXX XXXX supplied with my final Escrow Analysis, the abbreviation was for \" Transaction Date. '' It is clear that the XXXX payment history XXXX supplied, ( which neglected to include either the 13-page numbers for reference or an explanation as to why it was included, ) as it appears to have been thrown in as fluff. \n\nIf the \" Table '' and \" Payment History '' matched it would make sense. Instead, it conflicted with the '' Applied Funds Table, '' which fail to show my last payment made to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, nor did it include the correct payment amount of {$1300.00}. Which by law, must be posted and disbursed as of the date of receipt, ( in this case XX/XX/XXXX, ) not XX/XX/XXXX.Additionally, the table includes an \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$74.00} made on XX/XX/XXXX but fails to show the \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$5.00}, or the waving of the late charge of {$48.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, if my \" Error Letter '' had been read, it would be easy to see these mistakes clearly. How can a company come to an accurate conclusion without having or giving me information that is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed? I had the right to be explained why the table in the letter from XXXX did not match the XXXX loan history and how you came to the conclusions in the table. I am still in limbo because nothing has been corrected. \n\nParagraph two of the letter dated XXXX states, We are unable to comment on the escrow amounts collected by the prior servicer, as we collect the escrow information from the agencies after the loan was transferred to XXXX. Why isn't AGENCIES explained? What agencies are you talking about? XXXX has an obligation to be clear, and accurate. Why would I be supplied with XXXX 's internal form of my payment history with XXXX, only to tell me you can't comment about it? Should you really have sent me this form at all? Did the so-called \" Agencies '' make a mistake supplying it? Per 1024.38 38 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) -1 XXXX must have \" reasonable policies and procedures, '' and I have not seen this in attempts to work with this Servicer. \n\nLate Fee : One more Error made by XXXX : For some reason, Ms. XXXX was under the impression that I questioned the late charge XXXX had added to my XXXX payment. I questioned the accounting, XXXX  mistakenly charged a late fee and waved it the same day. My concern about this charge was, being accurately credited for this fee. The payment history showed It posted as a charge on XXXX, and it also showed a credit 4 times the same day, but my balance was not adjusted. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter explains I was charged a late fee on XX/XX/XXXX, but fail to state that this amount was credited back the same day, ( all they had to do was look at the payment history under total late fees. ) This question remains unanswered, I still want to see that I was credited. If the payment is held in a suspense or unapplied funds account, this fact must be reflected on future periodic statements, in accordance with 1026.41 ( d ) ( 3 ). When sufficient funds accumulate to cover a periodic payment, as defined in 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ), they must be treated as a periodic payment received in accordance with 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ). By being treated as a periodic payment the payment must be posted on the date received. \n\nPhone Call : I requested to be contacted by phone to explain the results of your investigation, I did not say this request was in lei of sending a written response. The XX/XX/XXXX letter states : \" We are unable to fulfill this request as it is our policy to respond by US Postal Service. '' One more blunder or failure to properly communicate what they mean. XXXX \" DID '' in fact call me, on XXXX and explained what was stated in the letter, ( hadn't yet been received ) and I was told what the conclusion was. The final paragraph of the letter states, \" Should you have any further questions, please call Customer Service. '' This conflicts with the prior statement XXXX made which began, \" We are unable to fulfill this request. '' It concludes : \" XXXX has reviewed and responded to your inquiries, ( I unequivocally disagree with such a statement. ) Then continues to say, \" We have provided all documentation relied upon to reach our determination, '' ( This explains and concurs, that there was little time spent investigating my concerns, ( even though it took 2 months to answer them. ) It is part of the reason there are so many mistakes, there was a lack of investigation by XXXX. ) The letter continues to say : \" If a document was not provided, it is because it is privileged or proprietary, '' ( such as in supplying an internal form, from XXXX. ) Isn't this statement in conflict with the prior one stating We have provided all documentation relied on? \n\nServicer 's use a computerized loan management system. The system XXXX uses should keep track of the borrowers account, and communications with the Servicer. What happened? Did the server at XXXX go down while this case was investigated? One of the main duties of a Servicer is to collect and process payments from the borrower, and have accurate accounting. When funds are applied improperly when the grace period is ignored, or there is a failure to credit funds to the principal balance, or escrow account there can be an artificial shortage, and XXXX is in violation of the terms in the deed of trust. Please remember, I was told there would not be another Escrow Analysis completed for a year on XXXX XXXX, ( date of transfer, because XXXX had completed one a month and a half before the transfer. Yet, in XXXX I was sent a new Analysis by XXXX, knowing Federal Laws only allows one completed per year, unless I request to have one completed. I was told there was a shortage of {$130.00}, which triggered my letter of dispute. \n\nTHERE WAS NO PART OF THIS LETTER THAT HAD CREDIBILITY! It is frightening to know that I am stuck with this Servicer until I either sell my home or refinance. \n\nEscrow Closure : My request to close Escrow, and XXXX acknowledgment of closure on XX/XX/XXXX, was one more string of errors, ( see attached Escrow Payment change notice XXXX, Escrow Closure Request form, XXXX Acknowledgement XXXX, and Escrow Closing Notice/Notification Escrow Closing XXXX. ) The form was supplied by XXXX and clearly shows I no longer wanted \" both '' my Property Taxes and Insurance Impounded. I was sent a letter Acknowledging my escrow would close on XXXX if I didn't call and cancel this request. I called on XX/XX/XXXX to verify my escrow was closed and was told a check was sent for the balance of my Taxes, but the Insurance was still opened. I asked why and was told the Escrow Department would be contacted, and I would get a call within 3 days with an answer. How do you botch up something so simple, and with your own forms? \n\nI asked to speak with the escrow department and was told, I could only speak to Customer Service, who clearly did not understand the makings of an Escrow Account. I had never heard of a company that did not let you speak to this department. It is no wonder there are so many mistakes made. I asked to have the insurance check sent XXXX overnight since this was an error made by XXXX, and my insurance was coming due within a few weeks. Plus my form clearly stated it was not longer XXXX XXXX responsibility to pay taxes or insurance, ( even though they still held the insurance balance of my escrow account. ) I was told they would \" try '' to request the check and overnight it. I replied that is not good enough. \n\nTwo days later, I received a call from XXXX stating a check was request was made that day, and he would internally, e-mail my request to have my check overnighted. One week later I received the check regular mail. XXXX repeatedly has made mistakes, and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing me additional fees along the way. When an error was made in the servicing of my mortgage, XXXX must either correct the error I identified, called \" notice of error '', or investigate the alleged error. XXXX has routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate my complaints, or make necessary corrections. \n\nThis is probably a result of loading inaccurate and incomplete information into its servicing system, or even when their data is accurate, XXXX still generated errors, because of their system failures and deficient programming. \n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting : Experian : The results of my dispute from my report dated XX/XX/XXXX arrived on XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ) as certified accurate and unchanged. This is a gross misstatement and shows that XXXX either has untrained employees is too busy to verify and correct the information or is a company who skips through federal compliance regulations hoping not to get caught in an audit by the CFPB. \n\nLooking at the attachment, \" Experian Dispute with XXXX '' is noticeably & erroneous based on a status date of XX/XX/XXXX : it fails to show loan transferred/sold, a recent payment made of {$2600.00}, ( also shown in error on the attached XXXX Account summary, ) which is the total of the individual payments I made for XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$1300.00} the monthly payment, also shown in error on my report is shown as {$1300.00}, which was the payment I made in XXXX because of XXXX XXXX inaccurate Escrow Analysis, which has disputed as of XX/XX/XXXX, ( see attachment, XXXX Error Letter. ) The term is 40 years, with 32 years remaining, not 46 years. There is no 46-year term for mortgages. \n\nFinally, XXXX felt a need to add, ( in error ) a comment : \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' This is a negative reporting remark, which can not be made after 7 years, ( it has been almost 10 years, ) the Modification completed by XXXX, ( see attachments XXXX XXXX Credit Report change, & XXXX XXXX Mod ) was disputed & removed from all credit reports in XXXX, and can not be added back. \n\nXXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the results of my dispute against XXXX   XXXX XXXX & XXXX ( see attachment, ). XXXX updated their information to now show the loan closed & transferred with the date of the last payment. \nXXXX : XXXX, on the other hand, created the illusion I had two mortgages instead of one, & one of them was a new mortgage, ( dropping my credit scores. ) Account information '' it also needs many of the same corrections for based on the \" Date of last activity '' shown as XX/XX/XXXX, Loan Balance must be reduced to match \" Date of last Activity, '' but continues to state the original balance on transfer of my loan XX/XX/XXXX, \" Actual Payment, '' {$2600.00}, should match \" Scheduled Payment. '' The \" Months Reviewed '' state 2 payments reported it is should state 3 were reviewed, the monthly payment was updated but still wrong, since the status date remains unchanged at XX/XX/XXXX, the updated payment is based on my new payment as of XXXX, which no longer has an escrow account. \n\nUnder \" Historical Account information '' the months of XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX must be completed to show payment in the amount of {$1300.00} and XXXX XXXX payment must be corrected to show this payment as well. By failing to report the XXXX & XXXX payment amounts, that the payments made were \" Regular Payments '', not \" Trial Payments '' ( under a trial period for a loan modification, by failing to report the loan as transferred/sold, ( needs to be added, ) but most importantly by reporting a comment the \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan, '' ( MUST remove outdated negative information. ) it has caused my credit score to drop 120 points. All of these mistakes contributed to lowering my overall credit score. \n\nXXXX XXXX : Not only is XXXX XXXX reporting the same errors as XXXX, but instead of showing a \" Historical Account information '' XXXX XXXX XXXX format places a table under the \" Remarks '' \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' that \" RATES '' the payments for XXXX and XXXX as \" X '' which is defined as \" Unknown, '' once again indicating a \" Trial Payment '' under a Modification. Instead, it should have shown as \" OK '' under their Rating Key method. This is unreasonable, will not be tolerated misleading, uncalled for, and must be changed immediately. \n\nConcerning the above comments, I would like to add, I was not notified by XXXX that they were reporting \" any '' information to the credit bureau 's, much less \" negative reporting '' concerning the type of mortgage I had. To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace period before any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one XXXX  received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and XXXX had not even received all the data from XXXX, ) XXXX may not report during the resolution period, which is usually another 60 days. In my case, during the period discussed, my payment changed with XXXX 3 times, and XXXX just sent another notice dated XXXX, received XX/XX/XXXX. Stating they are again reviewing my concerns, yet XXXX choose to ignore the State and Federal law and incorrectly began reporting on XXXX. Additionally, outdated information/negative reporting over 7 years old must not be reported. \n\nUnder the FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) prohibits false credit reporting of any type. A creditor must not supply information to a CRA that it knows ( or should know ) is inaccurate. That includes : misstating the balance due or reporting late payments when you paid timely. \n\nFailing to Follow Debt Dispute Procedures When you submit a written dispute about the accuracy of an item on your report, credit bureaus and your Servicer ( XXXX ) must take certain actions in response. Their duties include conducting a reasonable investigation of your dispute, correcting any inaccurate information, or even removing the disputed debt from your credit report. There are a number of ways they can fall short of their duties. \n\nSome common violations by a CRA include failing to : Notify a creditor that you dispute the debt that it has reported, conduct a reasonable investigation of your dispute, or correct or delete any inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information within 30 days of the receiving notice of your dispute, refrain from continuing to submit information that it knows ( or should know ) is incorrect, conduct an internal investigation of your dispute within 30 days ( or 45 days if you supply additional information during the investigation. ) When a private investor such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owns the loan, the market drives the servicing fee. Generally, the fee depends on the underlying credit quality of the borrower. Servicing a loan with a higher quality credit rating brings in fewer fees because servicing costs are lower. Servicing a loan that has lower credit quality generates a higher fee because borrowers tend to default on this type of loan, which makes them more labor-intensive to service. How many borrowers have XXXX supplied inaccurate information, in an effort to drive their fees up to and cost the investor thousands of dollars, by misleading them? \n\nBecause I have no say over who services my mortgage, I must depend on the CFPB to remain vigilant to ensure I get fair treatment. '' I can only hope the CFPB uncovers substantial evidence that XXXX has engaged in significant and systemic misconduct, at nearly every stage of the mortgage servicing process. \nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, such as those described above. The CFPBs mortgage servicing rules require that servicer 's promptly credit payments and correct errors on request. \n\nI hope you take these remarks seriously by discussing these errors with XXXX and making sure the corrections are made immediately. The information on my credit report should be prioritized, and when completed the FCRA states I am to be notified within 5 days. I would be glad to discuss anything you feel is not clear.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-18T04:26:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95630","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3377745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2019-09-18T00:26:47.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace <em>period</em> <em>before</em> any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one XXXX  received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and XXXX had not even received all the data from XXXX, ) XXXX may not report during the resolution <em>period</em>, which is usually another 60 days."]},"sort":[7.541582,"3377745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3377743","_score":7.541582,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX XXXX XXXX after waiting almost 60 business days and still not receiving a response to my Error Resolution Letter. XXXX XXXX stated he would have a supervisor contact me within 24 hours to discuss the issues. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX ( not a supervisor, ) who is in the Ombudsman Dispute Department, in the Executive Office at XXXX   XXXX XXXX, asking about my issues. \nBefore I had a chance to talk I was reprimanded for calling their investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was told all communication must go through XXXX. I explained to the representative, I had made many attempts to work with XXXX, and even called the Consumer Ombudsman department twice, whos representatives discounted the call twice. Either these employees are not trained to answer my specific questions, or just plain rude. \n\nI almost did not answer XXXX call because the was no caller ID naming XXXX, and because I get so many Scam calls, I usually do not answer the phone for unanimous callers. Today I received another call from XXXX, this time letting me know XXXX is working on my Error Letter. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ) XXXX sent a letter, which I received on Monday the XXXX, answering my error resolution letter. XXXX call did not make sense until she said the reason for her call was new information was received, and she was calling to state it was being reviewed in the Dispute Department. When I asked, \" Where did the information come from ''? She stated it was the information I just sent in. Again, I am working with someone who did not know what they were talking about. After a few more questions I realized, the \" new '' information she spoke of was the complaint I had filed with the CFPB # XXXX. \n\nI explained, this is the same information I sent to XXXX, and waited 2 months for a response, when per the CFPB 30 business days is the allowed period to respond, + a 15-day extension if within the 30 days notice is sent with a valid reason for the extension. Instead, I was sent a notice stating XXXX needed a 30-day extension, ( even though CFPB states no more than 15 days, ) it was outside the 30 day dispute period, and without a valid reason. XXXX replied she is required to call when a dispute is filed. I asked her about the credit report mistakes discussed in our previous call on XX/XX/XXXX, and all she could say is we are working on it. I mentioned it took 2 months to reply to my first dispute and asked how long would it take to respond to the Credit Report Disputes, and she said she didn't know. Based on this discussion, and my desire to have my credit report corrected, I plan to file another complaint with the CFPB for the credit issues, and the carelessly put together response from XXXX to my \" Error resolution letter. \n\nPlease read the response XXXX subsequently made on XXXX, ( attached, ) and come to your own conclusion, why would a one-page response take 2 months to accomplish. It really didn't address any of my concerns, and what is really humorous is the letter is filled with misconstrued facts and conclusions. \n\nThe correspondence included an \" Applied Funds Table, '' along with pages of XXXX  payment history, ( which I already had. ) As I reviewed the payment history ( supplied by XXXX, ) it became clear, I had been supplied with an internal form, based on the \" heading of each column. '' Such as \" XXXX '' which was not defined for the average consumer to understand. By comparing the payment history supplied by XXXX, to the actual history XXXX  XXXX XXXX supplied with my final Escrow Analysis, the abbreviation was for \" Transaction Date. '' It is clear that the XXXX payment history XXXX supplied, ( which neglected to include either the 13-page numbers for reference or an explanation as to why it was included, ) as it appears to have been thrown in as fluff. \n\nIf the \" Table '' and \" Payment History '' matched it would make sense. Instead, it conflicted with the '' Applied Funds Table, '' which fail to show my last payment made to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, nor did it include the correct payment amount of {$1300.00}. Which by law, must be posted and disbursed as of the date of receipt, ( in this case XX/XX/XXXX, ) not XX/XX/XXXX.Additionally, the table includes an \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$74.00} made on XX/XX/XXXX but fails to show the \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$5.00}, or the waving of the late charge of {$48.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, if my \" Error Letter '' had been read, it would be easy to see these mistakes clearly. How can a company come to an accurate conclusion without having or giving me information that is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed? I had the right to be explained why the table in the letter from XXXX did not match the XXXX loan history and how you came to the conclusions in the table. I am still in limbo because nothing has been corrected. \n\nParagraph two of the letter dated XXXX states, We are unable to comment on the escrow amounts collected by the prior servicer, as we collect the escrow information from the agencies after the loan was transferred to XXXX. Why isn't AGENCIES explained? What agencies are you talking about? XXXX has an obligation to be clear, and accurate. Why would I be supplied with XXXX XXXX internal form of my payment history with XXXX, only to tell me you can't comment about it? Should you really have sent me this form at all? Did the so-called \" Agencies '' make a mistake supplying it? Per 1024.38 38 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) -1 XXXX  must have \" reasonable policies and procedures, '' and I have not seen this in attempts to work with this Servicer. \n\nLate Fee : One more Error made by XXXX : For some reason, Ms. XXXX was under the impression that I questioned the late charge XXXX had added to my XXXX payment. I questioned the accounting, XXXX mistakenly charged a late fee and waved it the same day. My concern about this charge was, being accurately credited for this fee. The payment history showed It posted as a charge on XXXX, and it also showed a credit 4 times the same day, but my balance was not adjusted. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter explains I was charged a late fee on XX/XX/XXXX, but fail to state that this amount was credited back the same day, ( all they had to do was look at the payment history under total late fees. ) This question remains unanswered, I still want to see that I was credited. If the payment is held in a suspense or unapplied funds account, this fact must be reflected on future periodic statements, in accordance with 1026.41 ( d ) ( 3 ). When sufficient funds accumulate to cover a periodic payment, as defined in 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ), they must be treated as a periodic payment received in accordance with 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ). By being treated as a periodic payment the payment must be posted on the date received. \n\nPhone Call : I requested to be contacted by phone to explain the results of your investigation, I did not say this request was in lei of sending a written response. The XX/XX/XXXX letter states : \" We are unable to fulfill this request as it is our policy to respond by US Postal Service. '' One more blunder or failure to properly communicate what they mean. XXXX \" DID '' in fact call me, on XXXX and explained what was stated in the letter, ( hadn't yet been received ) and I was told what the conclusion was. The final paragraph of the letter states, \" Should you have any further questions, please call Customer Service. '' This conflicts with the prior statement XXXX made which began, \" We are unable to fulfill this request. '' It concludes : \" XXXX has reviewed and responded to your inquiries, ( I unequivocally disagree with such a statement. ) Then continues to say, \" We have provided all documentation relied upon to reach our determination, '' ( This explains and concurs, that there was little time spent investigating my concerns, ( even though it took 2 months to answer them. ) It is part of the reason there are so many mistakes, there was a lack of investigation by XXXX. ) The letter continues to say : \" If a document was not provided, it is because it is privileged or proprietary, '' ( such as in supplying an internal form, from XXXX. ) Isn't this statement in conflict with the prior one stating We have provided all documentation relied on? \n\nServicer 's use a computerized loan management system. The system XXXX uses should keep track of the borrowers account, and communications with the Servicer. What happened? Did the server at XXXX go down while this case was investigated? One of the main duties of a Servicer is to collect and process payments from the borrower, and have accurate accounting. When funds are applied improperly when the grace period is ignored, or there is a failure to credit funds to the principal balance, or escrow account there can be an artificial shortage, and XXXX is in violation of the terms in the deed of trust. Please remember, I was told there would not be another Escrow Analysis completed for a year on XXXX XXXX, ( date of transfer, because XXXX had completed one a month and a half before the transfer. Yet, in XXXX I was sent a new Analysis by XXXX, knowing Federal Laws only allows one completed per year, unless I request to have one completed. I was told there was a shortage of {$130.00}, which triggered my letter of dispute. \n\nTHERE WAS NO PART OF THIS LETTER THAT HAD CREDIBILITY! It is frightening to know that I am stuck with this Servicer until I either sell my home or refinance. \n\nEscrow Closure : My request to close Escrow, and XXXX acknowledgment of closure on XX/XX/XXXX, was one more string of errors, ( see attached Escrow Payment change notice XXXX, Escrow Closure Request form, XXXX Acknowledgement XXXX, and Escrow Closing Notice/Notification Escrow Closing XXXX. ) The form was supplied by XXXX and clearly shows I no longer wanted \" both '' my Property Taxes and Insurance Impounded. I was sent a letter Acknowledging my escrow would close on XXXX if I didn't call and cancel this request. I called on XX/XX/XXXX to verify my escrow was closed and was told a check was sent for the balance of my Taxes, but the Insurance was still opened. I asked why and was told the Escrow Department would be contacted, and I would get a call within 3 days with an answer. How do you botch up something so simple, and with your own forms? \n\nI asked to speak with the escrow department and was told, I could only speak to Customer Service, who clearly did not understand the makings of an Escrow Account. I had never heard of a company that did not let you speak to this department. It is no wonder there are so many mistakes made. I asked to have the insurance check sent XXXX overnight since this was an error made by XXXX, and my insurance was coming due within a few weeks. Plus my form clearly stated it was not longer XXXX XXXX responsibility to pay taxes or insurance, ( even though they still held the insurance balance of my escrow account. ) I was told they would \" try '' to request the check and overnight it. I replied that is not good enough. \n\nTwo days later, I received a call from XXXX stating a check was request was made that day, and he would internally, e-mail my request to have my check overnighted. One week later I received the check regular mail. XXXX repeatedly has made mistakes, and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing me additional fees along the way. When an error was made in the servicing of my mortgage, XXXX must either correct the error I identified, called \" notice of error '', or investigate the alleged error. XXXX has routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate my complaints, or make necessary corrections. \n\nThis is probably a result of loading inaccurate and incomplete information into its servicing system, or even when their data is accurate, XXXX still generated errors, because of their system failures and deficient programming. \n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting : XXXX : The results of my dispute from my report dated XX/XX/XXXX arrived on XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ) as certified accurate and unchanged. This is a gross misstatement and shows that XXXX either has untrained employees is too busy to verify and correct the information or is a company who skips through federal compliance regulations hoping not to get caught in an audit by the CFPB. \n\nLooking at the attachment, \" Experian Dispute with XXXX '' is noticeably & erroneous based on a status date of XX/XX/XXXX : it fails to show loan transferred/sold, a recent payment made of {$2600.00}, ( also shown in error on the attached XXXX  Account summary, ) which is the total of the individual payments I made for XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$1300.00} the monthly payment, also shown in error on my report is shown as {$1300.00}, which was the payment I made in XXXX because of XXXX XXXX inaccurate Escrow Analysis, which has disputed as of XX/XX/XXXX, ( see attachment, XXXX Error Letter. ) The term is 40 years, with 32 years remaining, not 46 years. There is no 46-year term for mortgages. \n\nFinally, XXXX felt a need to add, ( in error ) a comment : \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' This is a negative reporting remark, which can not be made after 7 years, ( it has been almost 10 years, ) the Modification completed by XXXX, ( see attachments XXXX XXXX Credit Report change, & XXXX XXXX Mod ) was disputed & removed from all credit reports in XXXX, and can not be added back. \n\nEquifax : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the results of my dispute against XXXX  XXXX XXXX & XXXX ( see attachment, ). XXXX updated their information to now show the loan closed & transferred with the date of the last payment. \nEquifax : XXXX, on the other hand, created the illusion I had two mortgages instead of one, & one of them was a new mortgage, ( dropping my credit scores. ) Account information '' it also needs many of the same corrections for based on the \" Date of last activity '' shown as XX/XX/XXXX, Loan Balance must be reduced to match \" Date of last Activity, '' but continues to state the original balance on transfer of my loan XX/XX/XXXX, \" Actual Payment, '' {$2600.00}, should match \" Scheduled Payment. '' The \" Months Reviewed '' state 2 payments reported it is should state 3 were reviewed, the monthly payment was updated but still wrong, since the status date remains unchanged at XX/XX/XXXX, the updated payment is based on my new payment as of XXXX, which no longer has an escrow account. \n\nUnder \" Historical Account information '' the months of XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX must be completed to show payment in the amount of {$1300.00} and XXXX XXXX payment must be corrected to show this payment as well. By failing to report the XXXX & XXXX payment amounts, that the payments made were \" Regular Payments '', not \" Trial Payments '' ( under a trial period for a loan modification, by failing to report the loan as transferred/sold, ( needs to be added, ) but most importantly by reporting a comment the \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan, '' ( MUST remove outdated negative information. ) it has caused my credit score to drop 120 points. All of these mistakes contributed to lowering my overall credit score. \n\nXXXX XXXX : Not only is XXXX XXXX reporting the same errors as Equifax, but instead of showing a \" Historical Account information '' XXXX XXXX XXXX format places a table under the \" Remarks '' \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' that \" RATES '' the payments for XXXX and XXXX as \" X '' which is defined as \" Unknown, '' once again indicating a \" Trial Payment '' under a Modification. Instead, it should have shown as \" OK '' under their Rating Key method. This is unreasonable, will not be tolerated misleading, uncalled for, and must be changed immediately. \n\nConcerning the above comments, I would like to add, I was not notified by XXXX that they were reporting \" any '' information to the credit bureau 's, much less \" negative reporting '' concerning the type of mortgage I had. To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace period before any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and XXXX had not even received all the data from XXXX, ) XXXX may not report during the resolution period, which is usually another 60 days. In my case, during the period discussed, my payment changed with XXXX 3 times, and XXXX just sent another notice dated XXXX, received XX/XX/XXXX. Stating they are again reviewing my concerns, yet XXXX choose to ignore the State and Federal law and incorrectly began reporting on XXXX. Additionally, outdated information/negative reporting over 7 years old must not be reported. \n\nUnder the FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) prohibits false credit reporting of any type. A creditor must not supply information to a CRA that it knows ( or should know ) is inaccurate. That includes : misstating the balance due or reporting late payments when you paid timely. \n\nFailing to Follow Debt Dispute Procedures When you submit a written dispute about the accuracy of an item on your report, credit bureaus and your Servicer ( XXXX ) must take certain actions in response. Their duties include conducting a reasonable investigation of your dispute, correcting any inaccurate information, or even removing the disputed debt from your credit report. There are a number of ways they can fall short of their duties. \n\nSome common violations by a CRA include failing to : Notify a creditor that you dispute the debt that it has reported, conduct a reasonable investigation of your dispute, or correct or delete any inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information within 30 days of the receiving notice of your dispute, refrain from continuing to submit information that it knows ( or should know ) is incorrect, conduct an internal investigation of your dispute within 30 days ( or 45 days if you supply additional information during the investigation. ) When a private investor such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owns the loan, the market drives the servicing fee. Generally, the fee depends on the underlying credit quality of the borrower. Servicing a loan with a higher quality credit rating brings in fewer fees because servicing costs are lower. Servicing a loan that has lower credit quality generates a higher fee because borrowers tend to default on this type of loan, which makes them more labor-intensive to service. How many borrowers have XXXX supplied inaccurate information, in an effort to drive their fees up to and cost the investor thousands of dollars, by misleading them? \n\nBecause I have no say over who services my mortgage, I must depend on the CFPB to remain vigilant to ensure I get fair treatment. '' I can only hope the CFPB uncovers substantial evidence that XXXX has engaged in significant and systemic misconduct, at nearly every stage of the mortgage servicing process. \nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, such as those described above. The CFPBs mortgage servicing rules require that servicer 's promptly credit payments and correct errors on request. \n\nI hope you take these remarks seriously by discussing these errors with XXXX and making sure the corrections are made immediately. The information on my credit report should be prioritized, and when completed the FCRA states I am to be notified within 5 days. I would be glad to discuss anything you feel is not clear.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-18T04:26:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95630","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3377743","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2019-09-18T00:26:47.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace <em>period</em> <em>before</em> any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and XXXX had not even received all the data from XXXX, ) XXXX may not report during the resolution <em>period</em>, which is usually another 60 days."]},"sort":[7.541582,"3377743"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3326402","_score":7.539391,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"InXX/XX/2019, I began the home-buying/home-searching process with Rocket Mortgage ( Quicken Loans ) as a first-time homebuyer. I provided every bit of information I was able to my loan officer from the very beginning in regards to my finances/income. I wanted to be completely transparent with any/all information so that I felt confident about the time/money I was investing in this process would eventually result in owning a home. I was pre-approved for an FHA loan for {$75000.00} which I tried to work with. I was told that FHA would be the best/only option based on my debt to income ratio ( mostly from student loan debt from my XXXX program ), but also because of the bankruptcy that was discharged almost 3 years ago. With the current housing market, it was nearly impossible to find a home for {$75000.00} that would pass the required FHA home inspection. In early-mid XXXX, I reached out to a different lender/loan officer who stated that she, XXXX ( XXXX ), would be able to pre-qualify me for more. She had been in the business for something like 25 years, so I felt really confident that she would be helpful and knowledgeable for me and my situation. She pulled my credit, worked the numbers, and told me I was pre-approved for $ XXXX, with an estimated mortgageamount. She said that she could go higher, but would probably need little more of a down payment. She quoted me mortgages for up to $ XXXX, which we stated to also be options if I found something for more. I didn't want to go up to $ XXXX because that mortgage payment was higher than I was comfortable with. I did feel more hopeful about finding a home I loved now that I had more flexibility in the my pre-approval. I found a home with a listing price of right under $ XXXX that I loved and wanted to make an offer on. I contacted my MLO again & was told she would send me a pre-approval letter to make an offer which she did & the offer was accepted! We worked closely together to get the loan to her underwriter and were scheduled to close on XX/XX/2019. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX called me with a little problem. The little problem was that she wasnt up to date on FHA guidelines regarding student loan payments, and that her underwriter had caught her mistake and wouldnt approve my loan from there because my debt to income ratio was too high. She stated that she had been counting my actual student loan payment amount on my IBR, but that FHA now requires counting of 1 % of the entire student loan or the amortized payment amount, whichever is greater. One month before closing & the rug was pulled out from underneath me. She told me that she re-worked the loan amounts all the way down to $ XXXX ( which didn't make sense ) and still couldnt get me approved based on my DTI. \n\nI then reached back out to XXXX to pick back up with the pre-approval amount he had previously offered. I told him about everything that had happened, including that we were a month from closing when her underwriter caught her mistake. He told me that he knew that would happen to me, as he had been in the business for several years and knew that with my DTI, I would have to pay some things off before I could be approved for that amount. I told him I wanted to pick back up with the pre-approval for $ XXXX or start over again if I had to, & that I needed to terminate my offer on the house to get my earnest money back. He told me to wait, that he wanted to talk to his finance manager and see what they could do for me. To my surprise, he came back with some options that would allow me to continue to closing on this home. My options were 1 ) a co-signer ( which I was adamant was not an option for me ) ; 2 ) pay off my current credit cards and refinance my car to get my payment at {$290.00} or less/month. I told him I would definitely be able to pay off my credit cards ( which I did, per our agreement ) & would see about refinancing my car ( which I ended up being able to do, but had to take a higher interest rate and pay the loan down by almost {$3000.00} ). On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX told me I would need to pay {$500.00} in earnest money to Rocket that would be used for the appraisal and any remaining amount would be applied to closing. He also told me that if I withdrew the loan before the appraisal was completed, I would be refunded the full amount. I made the payment by phone that same day, per XXXX requirement so that they could go ahead and schedule the appraisal, and it cleared from my checking account on XX/XX/2019. He  told me that he was going to go ahead and order the appraisal so that we could stay on track for the XX/XX/XXXX closing. My loan went through underwriting, and I was issued a conditional approval based on what we discussed & to provide them with some additional information/documents, all of which I provided to them as quickly as possible. My realtor and I decided that since the appraisal was going to be completed first, we would wait to make sure that the house appraised before ordering the other inspections needed to ensure that I wasnt paying for services all at once to ensure they passed. At this time, my application/file was passed on from XXXX to a new Rocket Mortgage associate, XXXX. From this point on, things become a nightmare We were now upon a holiday week ( XX/XX/XXXX ) so I was understanding of things slowing somewhat knowing that people vacation. Too much time started passing though, and it didnt feel like things were progressing with my loan. My realtor decided that to ask for an extension on the due diligence period to give Rocket more time to get things done. It was requested, granted, and the new due diligence period was now effective until XX/XX/2019 at XXXX EST and the new closing was XX/XX/2019 at XXXX EST. My realtor, also requesting updates from Rocket,  informed me that on XX/XX/XXXX, after speaking with XXXX at Rocket, she was told that the appraisal had not even been scheduled. I called on that same day to speak with XXXX to request that things move faster. I was told that the appraisal had not been scheduled because the appraiser hadnt called back, but that it was ordered on XXXX ( over a week after I was told it would be scheduled ) .I was assured we would still have the report back by XX/XX/XXXX. By this point I'm nervous. I requested, after days of getting Rocket team members saying that the appraisal company that was hired wasnt returning their calls or emails, they hire a different appraiser to complete the appraisal since we were running out of time, but was told that was not a possibility. I then asked that it be expedited. XXXX stated that he would look into it. After being reviewed, XXXX called and told me that the appraisal had actually been completed and he requested to get the report by XX/XX/XXXX. ( None of this was making sense. Dates and info provided to me were all over the place. ) That same evening, my realtor called me to follow up, that she talked to XXXX, who said the appraisal was scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX, ( completely conflicting with the information he gave me earlier ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX at XXXX XXXX to request that we receive the report by the end of the day ( since the latest update was that the appraisal had been done that morning at XXXX ) in attempt to be back on track. He was confused and stated that the appraisal had been done before XX/XX/XXXX, but again that hed look into it. At this point, I requested to speak with a supervisor and was put into contact with, XXXX. XXXX informed me that could not force the appraiser to get the report faster, and that there was nothing they could do. I acknowledged understanding that people are busy and can not just stop everything for me, but that I had been patient and understanding up to this point. I told him I was frustrated by the delay from his team in even ordering the appraisal to begin with. XXXX then informed me that they cant request an appraisal until after a case number was assigned because its an FHA loan so they had to see if any other appraisals had been done on the property that could be used ( which was new information to me and sounded like another excuse ). I informed him that I had requested a different appraiser, but was told that wasnt an option. I also had also asked what their back up plan was in situations like this, and was told there wasnt one. XXXX told me that he would personally stay on top of it. I didnt hear from him. I reached out and couldnt get ahold of XXXX and didnt have XXXX direct contact info. At this point, it felt like Rocket employees were making more of an effort to make excuses that to acknowledge that they dropped the ball or to pick the ball back up and move forward. I was getting no info unless I reached out, and even then that info was untrue/inaccurate. At this point, I paid {$500.00} for a service that I can not even get confirmation on has been rendered. I have also paid/been invoiced for many other services/inspections/fees that Ive had to complete in order to not hold the process up on my end. The goal for me was always to close on my home. By this point, I had spent countless hours trying to get info from Rocket regarding the status and jumping through hoops to get all the requested documentation to Rocket, ( even documents were requested multiple times as if they were not even being read/reviewed ). \nXX/XX/XXXX My call was never returned. I called again around XXXX. XXXX was unavailable, so I was routed to the next available team member. I expressed my frustration and said that I need the appraisal report that I was promised and then denied & told its going to take more time. He read the notes in my account and said, oh, it looks like its not due back until XX/XX/XXXX, so were fine. NO! That is incorrect! Most recently, before today, I was told it would be back today. Today came and now youre telling me the XXXX. He asked me if I had been in contact with my realtor. Yes, every step of the way. He then told me that Rocket has nothing to do with appraisals, that I would need to speak with my realtor about it. Again, incorrect info by Rocket. That is incorrect. I was told on XX/XX/XXXX that I HAD to pay Rocket {$500.00} so they could get the appraisal scheduled asap, which I did. Eventually my request to speak with XXXX was granted. He told me they still hadnt heard back from the appraisal company, and that hed give me a status update in the morning. He then asked how my name was to appear on the title/deed, if XXXX XXXX was correct. It was supposed to be XXXX XXXX XXXX as originally discussed, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX would also be on the deed, which was also discussed in the beginning. He said that he would make those changes to get that updated as well. ( Apparently, Rocket hadnt put the correct information on the deed ). \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX did call me to update me. He told me : We still havent heard back and our entire team will be out of the office the rest of the day. ( Another day would be lost in this process ). I asked why its gotten to this point & why they dont have a back-up plan with they work with a 3rd party that keeps Rocket from servicing their customers in a timely manner. He said that if he had been on this issue before this week, he would have looked into having someone else do the appraisal. I told him that I had asked early on in the process for a different appraiser to be assigned because from the beginning I have been told that there has been little to no response from the appraiser. I told him I was told that hiring a different appraiser was not an option. He said he could try to assign another appraiser now, but it  would further delay the process. I told him paid for one appraisal that didn't happen and I couldn't pay for another. He offered me good news that he cleared up the confusion regarding the paperwork that I had submitted, and resubmitted, and resubmitted so that was all taken care of. He then asked me my relation to XXXX and I told him she was my fianc. He ended with telling me that hed provide an update before leaving the office for the team event that he would be at for the rest of the day. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX called back a few minutes after hanging up to say he would have to send the title request to add XXXX name to it and wait for it to come back, that it might take a little while. I asked for clarification, So were going to have to wait on this now too? Because it wasnt submitted correctly the first time? I told him that her name was to be on the deed, and that if it meant taking a little while then thats what we would do as to ensure that BOTH names were on the deed. \nXX/XX/XXXX That evening, XXXX and I made several attempts to get the contact information of the appraisal company, which nobody had access to. Everyone who apparently had access to that information was at a company baseball game for the entire afternoon. XXXX left XXXX a voicemail to loop him in on this situation since he was the first contact that started this process. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX called me back per the voicemail that XXXX left. He stated that he was confused about why nobody has any info for us, but he didnt have access to the contact information of the appraisal company either. He apologized and told me he was sending out an email to everyone involved at Rocket, as well as the director,  to get an answer today. I asked him to verify the dates that it was ordered for me. He stated that he sent the request to his team to order the appraisal on XXXX, but that my account notes that it was picked up by a company on XX/XX/XXXX. I asked him to clarify what that meant, and if that meant that it wasnt requested by Rocket to an appraiser until the XXXX. He could not give me that information. He asked me when the appraisal had been done, and I informed him that nobody can confirm it has actually been completed. After several different dates were given to me as to when I would have the report back, it was then stated to me that the appraisal was scheduled for Monday, XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXX. I told XXXX that Im not sure that that even took place, because if his team members had been reaching out as often and diligently as I was being told with no success in reaching someone at the appraisal company, then there was no way they would know that the appraisal was taking place on the XXXX at XXXX. I told him that I was confused as to where that would have come from if they havent been able to reach the appraisal company. XXXX mentioned that in certain instances, an expedited appraisal can be ordered. I stated that if that was an option, why wasnt it offered to me earlier? \nXX/XX/XXXX When I hung up with XXXX, I called XXXX. When I told him my name, he chuckled ( as if to mock me ). I didn't react but stated I needed the contact information of the appraisal company so that I could follow up with them myself given nobody at Rocket could manage to make that happen. He said that they dont know who the appraiser was, that they dont have access to contact the appraiser. I asked for clarification : Really? Then who have you been supposedly reaching out to for answers? He said they work with a 3rd party who schedules the appraisal. I  asked for their contact information to connect the dots myself, and he stated he didnt have that contact info for me either. He stated he would get that information for me & follow back up with me shortly. He said he'd call me in 10-15 minutes. That was at XXXX. At XXXX I still had not received a callback. If they have been reaching out to someone as frequently and I'm told, how can there be no contact info to access? \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX I called XXXX back to get the contact info. He said he was still working on it. I asked why/how it was proving to be so hard to locate this info. He then said that he didnt contact them. I reminded him that he told me he had been making attempts to reach out, and asked him if that was a lie? He said that he had, but was trying to figure out the best contact person. Enough with the lies, I need ANY contact person from the appraisal management company that Rocket works with. He gave me XXXX XXXX and stated the company was XXXX. Her number is XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX I called XXXX XXXX and left a voicemail. Her voicemail provided the backup contact information for XXXX XXXX at XXXX. I called him and didnt reach him either, so I dialed 0 to speak with the next available Client Relations Team Specialist. I was connected to XXXX XXXX. She confirmed the appraisal was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. She stated it was ordered on XXXX and picked up on by an appraiser, XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX confirmed that he would complete the appraisal on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX also informed me that because Rocket is a partner they have access to their system as well as to ALL of the same information that she was providing to me. She stated that the appraiser had not returned the report yet, but that they had requested to get it about an hour ago. All of the info I have been fighting for from Rocket during the past 2 weeks was provided in 1 phone call to XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX I called XXXX for an update after sending an email to XXXX and XXXX @ Rocket requesting an update. I spoke to XXXX XXXX, who informed me that there still was no report on file. She transferred me to Rocket ( Quicken ) and I spoke to a person named, XXXX. XXXX confirmed my info to access my account, gave me no information, and passed me along to a XXXX, who did not answer my phone call. I left a voicemail. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX called to say there was still no report. I asked what Im supposed to do now. He said, I assure you that were doing everything we can to get this report. I explained that I understand theyre doing everything TODAY, but that that should have been the case for the entire 3 weeks that Ive been waiting. He said he could try to get another appraiser that same day. I told him that that was not going to be a helpful solution when it still wasnt going to get me a report in enough time to negotiate if/what needed by the following day at XXXX when due diligence ended. *Note : On this phone call, XXXX explained to me that the notes in my record ( now ) stated that the completion date for the appraisal as of XXXX was scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, that completion date was changed to XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the completion date was changed to XX/XX/XXXX, and now the completion date is scheduled for the same day of XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX called to tell me that I needed to pay off more debt to get my DTI under 50 % because of new information they received about a mortgage request that was denied. I told him that was incorrect, that that was NOT new information. He said, so our team knew that there had been another loan not go through? Yes, that was absolutely disclosed and discussed before ANY of this started. I told him that I had been informed that in order to qualify for the loan, I would need to pay off my credit card debts and refi my car to get my payment under $ XXXX/month, which I did almost a month ago. He said they would not be able to approve the loan unless I paid off my car or got a cosigner. I was shocked and speechless. I told him that I couldn't talk to him now & I would call him back. I was at work and panicking. I was now being told that I had wasted a month of time and resources to make this happen, only for Rocket to decide a week and 2 days before closing that they wont do the loan now. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I called XXXX to see what was going on. After some investigating, he concluded that XXXX at XXXX XXXX had not just denied me in underwriting with XXXX, but had also submitted the loan application to FHA as well, who then also denied me, but never shared any of that information with me? I was told that because FHA denied me, I would be unable to apply for another FHA loan for 180 days. I wasnt informed of this by XXXX, and Rocket failed check that I had not already been assigned an FHA case number ( which, from what I was learning, meant that they would have then known I had been denied by FHA and not just XXXX ). XXXX acknowledged that Rocket failed to do what should have been done ( as well as with letting the appraisal drag out for so long ), & that he would refund me the {$500.00} deposit I paid to have the appraisal done if, after speaking with XXXX XXXX first thing Friday morning, he concluded there was no other option to proceed. It never should have gotten to this point, and I never should have even paid that {$500.00}, the {$350.00} I paid for the inspection that Im now told I wont be recouping, the other fees assessed ( which I am providing invoices for as I receive them ), or the {$1000.00} I had tied up in earnest money. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX called at XXXX to confirm that the only options to proceed would be to pay my debts down another 6 % in addition to the other debts Ive already paid off per our agreement ( about $ 10k ) at the end of XXXX ( or add a cosigner, which I stated from the beginning was not an option ). Now Im out a ton of money, have wasted an unfathomable amount of time, and it was all for nothing. I can't believe that this could happen. I feel there has been no truth in lending from Rocket Mortgage. I wanted clarification but got answers that went in circles when I asked questions. I started researching what my options were and what FHA guidelines were. \nXX/XX/XXXX : After researching FHA guidelines as recommended by another lender that I know, it came to my attention that Rocket had once again provided false/inaccurate information, particularly regarding FHA guidelines. It was now my understanding that FHA case numbers are assigned to properties, not borrowers, and that the case number can be transferred from one lender to another at the new lenders request. It was also now my understanding that the FHA case number, once assigned, sticks with the property, not the borrower, and should the borrower not close, the FHA case number would then be assigned to a new FHA borrower ( if someone tried to purchase the home with an FHA loan ) within a required time period or else the case number would expire. I emailed XXXX XXXX ( the Solutions Consultant who called me on Thursday to inform me that they were no longer financing my loan ) for clarification. \nXXXX called me instead of responding to my email because it was easier. He stated that I had an FHA case number assigned to me as well as one assigned to the property, and that because I was denied by the previous lender, they had to review my case. Upon reviewing, they determined I now had to have a lower debt-to-income ratio or a cosigner and a credit score over 620 ( which I have ). I asked, so to clarify, thats Rockets policy and not FHA guidelines? He said that he would give me the number to the client relations team if I had additional questions. I didnt want to be punted to another department, since he was the one who had given this information to me originally. I stated that I was told that was provided the FHA guidelines from him last week, and that he informed me that this was why I would not be eligible for 180 days. He stated that just because I qualified for FHA did not mean that they HAD to finance me, which I did not contest. I informed him that my argument was that because it was presented as FHA guidelines, it was not presented to me that I had any other options ( i.e. contacting a different lender ), and I had to terminate my offer before due diligence ended the following day as not to lose my earnest money. He still never responded to my question asking why I was told I would have to wait 180 days to apply for another FHA loan. As I was asking for clarifications between FHA guidelines and Rocket policies, XXXX interrupted me and was talking over me telling me that he could not speak to FHA guidelines, only Rockets, and that if I needed questions answered about that that I could contact Client Relations for assistance. I stated that if he was providing me the information that I was denied per FHA and that if they were lending on FHA insured loans that he SHOULD have accurate FHA guideline information for customers, and that I was frustrated that I had been provided incorrect information yet again. I told him that I didnt need to speak with client relations, that I was tired of being punted from team to team with different information each time, that it was very apparent that I wasnt given accurate information again, and that I was going to escalate this case and thanked him for his time. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I sent 2 emails to XXXX asking him for clarification as to what non-self employed income not supported meant, and stated that I reached out to him since the letter was signed with his name. He told me that he didnt know what XXXX told me on the phone about the denial and couldnt tell me what the non-self employed income not supported meant either. He said that it was a generic letter that they send out. He said that he reached out to XXXX to call me but that XXXX was out of the office until XX/XX/XXXX. I told him that XXXX had not been able to answer my questions regarding FHA guidelines previously but only tried to punt me to client relations, and therefore having him call me would probably result in the same outcome. He told me that to his knowledge, the FHA case number was assigned to me AND the property. I informed him that it was my understanding that it was assigned to the property and that the FHA case number transfers with the property, not the person. He stated that he was unsure of the FHA policy, but again would have XXXX call me. I explained my frustration with the information that was given to me being inaccurate, and that the denial that XXXX originally mentioned was because the other lender didnt approve my loan they had to review my loan, which at that time decided that in order to proceed with my loan, Rocket would require me to pay my debt down to under 50 % and have a credit score of at least 620 ( I believe was the number he gave me ) which my credit score was well above. Rockets documentation dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX states that my credit score was a XXXX, well above the required minimum credit score for FHA. After doing everything I was required to do to meet the FHA debt to income ratio of being under 56 %, which I was told my Rocket would clear me for a final approval, Rocket decided after a month into the process that I now had to meet completely different requirements, and then was telling me that it was FHA denying me. The previous lender denied me because she didnt have accurate information on FHA guidelines which were caught by her underwriter. Rocket was made completely aware of this from the beginning, instructed me on how much debt would need to be paid off to be under FHAs 56 % and that I would be good to go. Rocket went against all of what I had been told, despite doing exactly as I was required to do, blamed it on FHA policy, and yet stated with their sudden and new requirements that if I had a cosigner or paid down the additional 6 % of my debt, that I could continue with the FHA loan. It makes no sense, the stories arent cohesive from one contact at Rocket to the next, and when I ask questions, nobody can seem to provide that information, and punts me to someone on the client relations team. If a letter is sent on someones behalf ( in this case XXXX ), and even if it is, in fact, a generic letter, that person named on the letter should absolutely be able to accurately explain the contents of that letter. Additionally, if the denial reason is what they say it is, then there should be no need for interpretation from another person ( XXXX, who couldnt answer my questions previously either ), who wont even be in the office for another 3 days, to the next person working on the same loan application. I had emailed XXXX as to not engage in another discussion at work regarding all of this personal information, but again I receive a phone call in response to an email, that needed a simple response to a simple question for clarification, which Rocket team members could not provide. During this same conversation with XXXX, the denial reason also shifted from Rocket stating that I had been denied by another lender who reported the denial to FHA, to I was denied the loan by FHA. I again asked for clarification, and reminded XXXX that he and I had discussed that XXXX  underwriter had denied to loan when I spoke with him from the beginning. I clarified that he was now telling me that FHA denied me, which was not the information I had been given by XXXX, that he was now blaming me for withholding information about. I had not heard anything about being denied by anyone except FHA until Rocket all of a sudden telling me that it was denied by FHA ( and also telling me that it was only denied by XXXX but it was then reported to FHA ). \nI have so many concerns and issues with how this has played out and how I have been treated and misinformed ( and dare I say, blatantly lied to ) by Rocket Mortgage. Im completely at a loss and Im truly unsure of who to contact to resolve this. I have kept thorough documentation throughout and will supply any documentation needed.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-08-01T20:13:03.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"28630","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3326402","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2019-08-01T20:05:02.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My realtor decided that to ask for an extension on the due diligence <em>period</em> to give Rocket more time to get things done. It was requested, granted, and the new due diligence <em>period</em> was now effective until XX/XX/2019 at XXXX EST and the new <em>closing</em> was XX/XX/2019 at XXXX EST. My realtor, also requesting updates from Rocket,  informed me that on XX/XX/XXXX, after speaking with XXXX at Rocket, she was told that the appraisal had not even been scheduled."],"issue":["<em>Closing</em> on a mortgage"]},"sort":[7.539391,"3326402"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3377746","_score":7.530864,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX XXXX  XXXX after waiting almost 60 business days and still not receiving a response to my Error Resolution Letter. XXXX XXXX stated he would have a supervisor contact me within 24 hours to discuss the issues. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX ( not a supervisor, ) who is in the Ombudsman Dispute Department, in the Executive Office at XXXX   XXXX XXXX, asking about my issues. \nBefore I had a chance to talk I was reprimanded for calling their investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was told all communication must go through XXXX. I explained to the representative, I had made many attempts to work with XXXX, and even called the Consumer Ombudsman department twice, whos representatives discounted the call twice. Either these employees are not trained to answer my specific questions, or just plain rude. \n\nI almost did not answer XXXX call because the was no caller ID naming XXXX, and because I get so many Scam calls, I usually do not answer the phone for unanimous callers. Today I received another call from XXXX, this time letting me know XXXX is working on my Error Letter. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ) XXXX sent a letter, which I received on Monday the XXXX, answering my error resolution letter. XXXX call did not make sense until she said the reason for her call was new information was received, and she was calling to state it was being reviewed in the Dispute Department. When I asked, \" Where did the information come from ''? She stated it was the information I just sent in. Again, I am working with someone who did not know what they were talking about. After a few more questions I realized, the \" new '' information she spoke of was the complaint I had filed with the CFPB # XXXX. \n\nI explained, this is the same information I sent to XXXX, and waited 2 months for a response, when per the CFPB 30 business days is the allowed period to respond, + a 15-day extension if within the 30 days notice is sent with a valid reason for the extension. Instead, I was sent a notice stating XXXX needed a 30-day extension, ( even though CFPB states no more than 15 days, ) it was outside the 30 day dispute period, and without a valid reason. XXXX replied she is required to call when a dispute is filed. I asked her about the credit report mistakes discussed in our previous call on XX/XX/XXXX, and all she could say is we are working on it. I mentioned it took 2 months to reply to my first dispute and asked how long would it take to respond to the Credit Report Disputes, and she said she didn't know. Based on this discussion, and my desire to have my credit report corrected, I plan to file another complaint with the CFPB for the credit issues, and the carelessly put together response from XXXX to my \" Error resolution letter. \n\nPlease read the response XXXX subsequently made on XXXX, ( attached, ) and come to your own conclusion, why would a one-page response take 2 months to accomplish. It really didn't address any of my concerns, and what is really humorous is the letter is filled with misconstrued facts and conclusions. \n\nThe correspondence included an \" Applied Funds Table, '' along with pages of XXXX payment history, ( which I already had. ) As I reviewed the payment history ( supplied by XXXX, ) it became clear, I had been supplied with an internal form, based on the \" heading of each column. '' Such as \" XXXX '' which was not defined for the average consumer to understand. By comparing the payment history supplied by XXXX, to the actual history XXXX XXXX XXXX supplied with my final Escrow Analysis, the abbreviation was for \" Transaction Date. '' It is clear that the XXXX  payment history XXXX supplied, ( which neglected to include either the 13-page numbers for reference or an explanation as to why it was included, ) as it appears to have been thrown in as fluff. \n\nIf the \" Table '' and \" Payment History '' matched it would make sense. Instead, it conflicted with the '' Applied Funds Table, '' which fail to show my last payment made to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, nor did it include the correct payment amount of {$1300.00}. Which by law, must be posted and disbursed as of the date of receipt, ( in this case XX/XX/XXXX, ) not XX/XX/XXXX.Additionally, the table includes an \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$74.00} made on XX/XX/XXXX but fails to show the \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$5.00}, or the waving of the late charge of {$48.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, if my \" Error Letter '' had been read, it would be easy to see these mistakes clearly. How can a company come to an accurate conclusion without having or giving me information that is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed? I had the right to be explained why the table in the letter from XXXX did not match the XXXX loan history and how you came to the conclusions in the table. I am still in limbo because nothing has been corrected. \n\nParagraph two of the letter dated XXXX states, We are unable to comment on the escrow amounts collected by the prior servicer, as we collect the escrow information from the agencies after the loan was transferred to XXXX. Why isn't AGENCIES explained? What agencies are you talking about? XXXX has an obligation to be clear, and accurate. Why would I be supplied with XXXX XXXX internal form of my payment history with XXXX, only to tell me you can't comment about it? Should you really have sent me this form at all? Did the so-called \" Agencies '' make a mistake supplying it? Per 1024.38 38 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) -1 XXXX must have \" reasonable policies and procedures, '' and I have not seen this in attempts to work with this Servicer. \n\nLate Fee : One more Error made by XXXX  : For some reason, Ms. XXXX was under the impression that I questioned the late charge XXXX  had added to my XXXX payment. I questioned the accounting, XXXX mistakenly charged a late fee and waved it the same day. My concern about this charge was, being accurately credited for this fee. The payment history showed It posted as a charge on XXXX, and it also showed a credit 4 times the same day, but my balance was not adjusted. XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX letter explains I was charged a late fee on XX/XX/XXXX, but fail to state that this amount was credited back the same day, ( all they had to do was look at the payment history under total late fees. ) This question remains unanswered, I still want to see that I was credited. If the payment is held in a suspense or unapplied funds account, this fact must be reflected on future periodic statements, in accordance with 1026.41 ( d ) ( 3 ). When sufficient funds accumulate to cover a periodic payment, as defined in 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ), they must be treated as a periodic payment received in accordance with 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ). By being treated as a periodic payment the payment must be posted on the date received. \n\nPhone Call : I requested to be contacted by phone to explain the results of your investigation, I did not say this request was in lei of sending a written response. The XX/XX/XXXX letter states : \" We are unable to fulfill this request as it is our policy to respond by US Postal Service. '' One more blunder or failure to properly communicate what they mean. XXXX \" DID '' in fact call me, on XXXX and explained what was stated in the letter, ( hadn't yet been received ) and I was told what the conclusion was. The final paragraph of the letter states, \" Should you have any further questions, please call Customer Service. '' This conflicts with the prior statement XXXX made which began, \" We are unable to fulfill this request. '' It concludes : \" XXXX has reviewed and responded to your inquiries, ( I unequivocally disagree with such a statement. ) Then continues to say, \" We have provided all documentation relied upon to reach our determination, '' ( This explains and concurs, that there was little time spent investigating my concerns, ( even though it took 2 months to answer them. ) It is part of the reason there are so many mistakes, there was a lack of investigation by XXXX. ) The letter continues to say : \" If a document was not provided, it is because it is privileged or proprietary, '' ( such as in supplying an internal form, from XXXX. ) Isn't this statement in conflict with the prior one stating We have provided all documentation relied on? \n\nServicer 's use a computerized loan management system. The system XXXX uses should keep track of the borrowers account, and communications with the Servicer. What happened? Did the server at XXXX go down while this case was investigated? One of the main duties of a Servicer is to collect and process payments from the borrower, and have accurate accounting. When funds are applied improperly when the grace period is ignored, or there is a failure to credit funds to the principal balance, or escrow account there can be an artificial shortage, and XXXX is in violation of the terms in the deed of trust. Please remember, I was told there would not be another Escrow Analysis completed for a year on XXXX first, ( date of transfer, because XXXX had completed one a month and a half before the transfer. Yet, in XXXX I was sent a new Analysis by XXXX, knowing Federal Laws only allows one completed per year, unless I request to have one completed. I was told there was a shortage of {$130.00}, which triggered my letter of dispute. \n\nTHERE WAS NO PART OF THIS LETTER THAT HAD CREDIBILITY! It is frightening to know that I am stuck with this Servicer until I either sell my home or refinance. \n\nEscrow Closure : My request to close Escrow, and XXXX acknowledgment of closure on XX/XX/XXXX, was one more string of errors, ( see attached Escrow Payment change notice XXXX, Escrow Closure Request form, XXXX Acknowledgement XXXX, and Escrow Closing Notice/Notification Escrow Closing XXXX. ) The form was supplied by XXXX and clearly shows I no longer wanted \" both '' my Property Taxes and Insurance Impounded. I was sent a letter Acknowledging my escrow would close on XXXX if I didn't call and cancel this request. I called on XX/XX/XXXX to verify my escrow was closed and was told a check was sent for the balance of my Taxes, but the Insurance was still opened. I asked why and was told the Escrow Department would be contacted, and I would get a call within 3 days with an answer. How do you botch up something so simple, and with your own forms? \n\nI asked to speak with the escrow department and was told, I could only speak to Customer Service, who clearly did not understand the makings of an Escrow Account. I had never heard of a company that did not let you speak to this department. It is no wonder there are so many mistakes made. I asked to have the insurance check sent XXXX overnight since this was an error made by XXXX, and my insurance was coming due within a few weeks. Plus my form clearly stated it was not longer XXXX XXXX responsibility to pay taxes or insurance, ( even though they still held the insurance balance of my escrow account. ) I was told they would \" try '' to request the check and overnight it. I replied that is not good enough. \n\nTwo days later, I received a call from XXXX stating a check was request was made that day, and he would internally, e-mail my request to have my check overnighted. One week later I received the check regular mail. XXXX repeatedly has made mistakes, and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing me additional fees along the way. When an error was made in the servicing of my mortgage, XXXX must either correct the error I identified, called \" notice of error '', or investigate the alleged error. XXXX has routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate my complaints, or make necessary corrections. \n\nThis is probably a result of loading inaccurate and incomplete information into its servicing system, or even when their data is accurate, XXXX still generated errors, because of their system failures and deficient programming. \n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting : XXXX : The results of my dispute from my report dated XX/XX/XXXX arrived on XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ) as certified accurate and unchanged. This is a gross misstatement and shows that XXXX either has untrained employees is too busy to verify and correct the information or is a company who skips through federal compliance regulations hoping not to get caught in an audit by the CFPB. \n\nLooking at the attachment, \" Experian Dispute with XXXX '' is noticeably & erroneous based on a status date of XX/XX/XXXX : it fails to show loan transferred/sold, a recent payment made of {$2600.00}, ( also shown in error on the attached XXXX  Account summary, ) which is the total of the individual payments I made for XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$1300.00} the monthly payment, also shown in error on my report is shown as {$1300.00}, which was the payment I made in XXXX because of XXXX XXXX inaccurate Escrow Analysis, which has disputed as of XX/XX/XXXX, ( see attachment, XXXX Error Letter. ) The term is 40 years, with 32 years remaining, not 46 years. There is no 46-year term for mortgages. \n\nFinally, XXXX felt a need to add, ( in error ) a comment : \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' This is a negative reporting remark, which can not be made after 7 years, ( it has been almost 10 years, ) the Modification completed by XXXX, ( see attachments XXXX  XXXX Credit Report change, & XXXX XXXX Mod ) was disputed & removed from all credit reports in XXXX, and can not be added back. \n\nXXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the results of my dispute against XXXX   XXXX XXXX & XXXX ( see attachment, ). XXXX updated their information to now show the loan closed & transferred with the date of the last payment. \nXXXX  : XXXX, on the other hand, created the illusion I had two mortgages instead of one, & one of them was a new mortgage, ( dropping my credit scores. ) Account information '' it also needs many of the same corrections for based on the \" Date of last activity '' shown as XX/XX/XXXX, Loan Balance must be reduced to match \" Date of last Activity, '' but continues to state the original balance on transfer of my loan XX/XX/XXXX, \" Actual Payment, '' {$2600.00}, should match \" Scheduled Payment. '' The \" Months Reviewed '' state 2 payments reported it is should state 3 were reviewed, the monthly payment was updated but still wrong, since the status date remains unchanged at XX/XX/XXXX, the updated payment is based on my new payment as of XXXX, which no longer has an escrow account. \n\nUnder \" Historical Account information '' the months of XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX must be completed to show payment in the amount of {$1300.00} and XXXX XXXX payment must be corrected to show this payment as well. By failing to report the XXXX & XXXX payment amounts, that the payments made were \" Regular Payments '', not \" Trial Payments '' ( under a trial period for a loan modification, by failing to report the loan as transferred/sold, ( needs to be added, ) but most importantly by reporting a comment the \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan, '' ( MUST remove outdated negative information. ) it has caused my credit score to drop 120 points. All of these mistakes contributed to lowering my overall credit score. \n\nTrans Union : Not only is Trans Union reporting the same errors as XXXX, but instead of showing a \" Historical Account information '' Trans Union 's format places a table under the \" Remarks '' \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' that \" RATES '' the payments for XXXX and XXXX as \" X '' which is defined as \" Unknown, '' once again indicating a \" Trial Payment '' under a Modification. Instead, it should have shown as \" OK '' under their Rating Key method. This is unreasonable, will not be tolerated misleading, uncalled for, and must be changed immediately. \n\nConcerning the above comments, I would like to add, I was not notified by SPS that they were reporting \" any '' information to the credit bureau 's, much less \" negative reporting '' concerning the type of mortgage I had. To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace period before any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and XXXX had not even received all the data from BAC, ) SPS may not report during the resolution period, which is usually another 60 days. In my case, during the period discussed, my payment changed with XXXX 3 times, and XXXX just sent another notice dated XXXX, received XX/XX/XXXX. Stating they are again reviewing my concerns, yet XXXX choose to ignore the State and Federal law and incorrectly began reporting on XXXX. Additionally, outdated information/negative reporting over 7 years old must not be reported. \n\nUnder the FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) prohibits false credit reporting of any type. A creditor must not supply information to a CRA that it knows ( or should know ) is inaccurate. That includes : misstating the balance due or reporting late payments when you paid timely. \n\nFailing to Follow Debt Dispute Procedures When you submit a written dispute about the accuracy of an item on your report, credit bureaus and your Servicer ( SPS ) must take certain actions in response. Their duties include conducting a reasonable investigation of your dispute, correcting any inaccurate information, or even removing the disputed debt from your credit report. There are a number of ways they can fall short of their duties. \n\nSome common violations by a CRA include failing to : Notify a creditor that you dispute the debt that it has reported, conduct a reasonable investigation of your dispute, or correct or delete any inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information within 30 days of the receiving notice of your dispute, refrain from continuing to submit information that it knows ( or should know ) is incorrect, conduct an internal investigation of your dispute within 30 days ( or 45 days if you supply additional information during the investigation. ) When a private investor such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owns the loan, the market drives the servicing fee. Generally, the fee depends on the underlying credit quality of the borrower. Servicing a loan with a higher quality credit rating brings in fewer fees because servicing costs are lower. Servicing a loan that has lower credit quality generates a higher fee because borrowers tend to default on this type of loan, which makes them more labor-intensive to service. How many borrowers have XXXX supplied inaccurate information, in an effort to drive their fees up to and cost the investor thousands of dollars, by misleading them? \n\nBecause I have no say over who services my mortgage, I must depend on the CFPB to remain vigilant to ensure I get fair treatment. '' I can only hope the CFPB uncovers substantial evidence that XXXX has engaged in significant and systemic misconduct, at nearly every stage of the mortgage servicing process. \nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, such as those described above. The CFPBs mortgage servicing rules require that servicer 's promptly credit payments and correct errors on request. \n\nI hope you take these remarks seriously by discussing these errors with XXXX and making sure the corrections are made immediately. The information on my credit report should be prioritized, and when completed the FCRA states I am to be notified within 5 days. I would be glad to discuss anything you feel is not clear.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-18T04:26:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95630","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3377746","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2019-09-18T00:26:47.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace <em>period</em> <em>before</em> any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and XXXX had not even received all the data from BAC, ) SPS may not report during the resolution <em>period</em>, which is usually another 60 days."]},"sort":[7.530864,"3377746"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3377739","_score":7.530864,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX XXXX XXXX after waiting almost 60 business days and still not receiving a response to my Error Resolution Letter. XXXX XXXX stated he would have a supervisor contact me within 24 hours to discuss the issues. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX ( not a supervisor, ) who is in the Ombudsman Dispute Department, in the Executive Office at Select Portfolio Servicing, asking about my issues. \nBefore I had a chance to talk I was reprimanded for calling their investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX. I was told all communication must go through SPS. I explained to the representative, I had made many attempts to work with SPS, and even called the Consumer Ombudsman department twice, whos representatives discounted the call twice. Either these employees are not trained to answer my specific questions, or just plain rude. \n\nI almost did not answer XXXX call because the was no caller ID naming SPS, and because I get so many Scam calls, I usually do not answer the phone for unanimous callers. Today I received another call from XXXX, this time letting me know SPS is working on my Error Letter. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ) SPS sent a letter, which I received on Monday the XXXX, answering my error resolution letter. XXXX call did not make sense until she said the reason for her call was new information was received, and she was calling to state it was being reviewed in the Dispute Department. When I asked, \" Where did the information come from ''? She stated it was the information I just sent in. Again, I am working with someone who did not know what they were talking about. After a few more questions I realized, the \" new '' information she spoke of was the complaint I had filed with the CFPB # XXXX. \n\nI explained, this is the same information I sent to SPS, and waited 2 months for a response, when per the CFPB 30 business days is the allowed period to respond, + a 15-day extension if within the 30 days notice is sent with a valid reason for the extension. Instead, I was sent a notice stating SPS needed a 30-day extension, ( even though CFPB states no more than 15 days, ) it was outside the 30 day dispute period, and without a valid reason. XXXX replied she is required to call when a dispute is filed. I asked her about the credit report mistakes discussed in our previous call on XX/XX/XXXX, and all she could say is we are working on it. I mentioned it took 2 months to reply to my first dispute and asked how long would it take to respond to the Credit Report Disputes, and she said she didn't know. Based on this discussion, and my desire to have my credit report corrected, I plan to file another complaint with the CFPB for the credit issues, and the carelessly put together response from SPS to my \" Error resolution letter. \n\nPlease read the response SPS subsequently made on XXXX, ( attached, ) and come to your own conclusion, why would a one-page response take 2 months to accomplish. It really didn't address any of my concerns, and what is really humorous is the letter is filled with misconstrued facts and conclusions. \n\nThe correspondence included an \" Applied Funds Table, '' along with pages of XXXX payment history, ( which I already had. ) As I reviewed the payment history ( supplied by XXXX, ) it became clear, I had been supplied with an internal form, based on the \" heading of each column. '' Such as \" XXXX '' which was not defined for the average consumer to understand. By comparing the payment history supplied by SPS, to the actual history XXXX  XXXX XXXX supplied with my final Escrow Analysis, the abbreviation was for \" Transaction Date. '' It is clear that the XXXX payment history SPS supplied, ( which neglected to include either the 13-page numbers for reference or an explanation as to why it was included, ) as it appears to have been thrown in as fluff. \n\nIf the \" Table '' and \" Payment History '' matched it would make sense. Instead, it conflicted with the '' Applied Funds Table, '' which fail to show my last payment made to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, nor did it include the correct payment amount of {$1300.00}. Which by law, must be posted and disbursed as of the date of receipt, ( in this case XX/XX/XXXX, ) not XX/XX/XXXX.Additionally, the table includes an \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$74.00} made on XX/XX/XXXX but fails to show the \" Escrow Shortage '' payment of {$5.00}, or the waving of the late charge of {$48.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, if my \" Error Letter '' had been read, it would be easy to see these mistakes clearly. How can a company come to an accurate conclusion without having or giving me information that is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed? I had the right to be explained why the table in the letter from SPS did not match the XXXX loan history and how you came to the conclusions in the table. I am still in limbo because nothing has been corrected. \n\nParagraph two of the letter dated XXXX states, We are unable to comment on the escrow amounts collected by the prior servicer, as we collect the escrow information from the agencies after the loan was transferred to SPS. Why isn't AGENCIES explained? What agencies are you talking about? SPS has an obligation to be clear, and accurate. Why would I be supplied with SPS 's internal form of my payment history with XXXX, only to tell me you can't comment about it? Should you really have sent me this form at all? Did the so-called \" Agencies '' make a mistake supplying it? Per 1024.38 38 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) -1 SPS must have \" reasonable policies and procedures, '' and I have not seen this in attempts to work with this Servicer. \n\nLate Fee : One more Error made by SPS : For some reason, Ms. XXXX was under the impression that I questioned the late charge XX/XX/XXXX had added to my XXXX payment. I questioned the accounting, XX/XX/XXXXmistakenly charged a late fee and waved it the same day. My concern about this charge was, being accurately credited for this fee. The payment history showed It posted as a charge on XXXX, and it also showed a credit 4 times the same day, but my balance was not adjusted. SPS XX/XX/XXXX letter explains I was charged a late fee on XX/XX/XXXX, but fail to state that this amount was credited back the same day, ( all they had to do was look at the payment history under total late fees. ) This question remains unanswered, I still want to see that I was credited. If the payment is held in a suspense or unapplied funds account, this fact must be reflected on future periodic statements, in accordance with 1026.41 ( d ) ( 3 ). When sufficient funds accumulate to cover a periodic payment, as defined in 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ), they must be treated as a periodic payment received in accordance with 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( I ). By being treated as a periodic payment the payment must be posted on the date received. \n\nPhone Call : I requested to be contacted by phone to explain the results of your investigation, I did not say this request was in lei of sending a written response. The XX/XX/XXXX letter states : \" We are unable to fulfill this request as it is our policy to respond by US Postal Service. '' One more blunder or failure to properly communicate what they mean. SPS \" DID '' in fact call me, on XXXX and explained what was stated in the letter, ( hadn't yet been received ) and I was told what the conclusion was. The final paragraph of the letter states, \" Should you have any further questions, please call Customer Service. '' This conflicts with the prior statement SPS made which began, \" We are unable to fulfill this request. '' It concludes : \" SPS has reviewed and responded to your inquiries, ( I unequivocally disagree with such a statement. ) Then continues to say, \" We have provided all documentation relied upon to reach our determination, '' ( This explains and concurs, that there was little time spent investigating my concerns, ( even though it took 2 months to answer them. ) It is part of the reason there are so many mistakes, there was a lack of investigation by SPS. ) The letter continues to say : \" If a document was not provided, it is because it is privileged or proprietary, '' ( such as in supplying an internal form, from XXXX. ) Isn't this statement in conflict with the prior one stating We have provided all documentation relied on? \n\nServicer 's use a computerized loan management system. The system SPS uses should keep track of the borrowers account, and communications with the Servicer. What happened? Did the server at SPS go down while this case was investigated? One of the main duties of a Servicer is to collect and process payments from the borrower, and have accurate accounting. When funds are applied improperly when the grace period is ignored, or there is a failure to credit funds to the principal balance, or escrow account there can be an artificial shortage, and SPS is in violation of the terms in the deed of trust. Please remember, I was told there would not be another Escrow Analysis completed for a year on XXXX XXXX, ( date of transfer, because XXXX had completed one a month and a half before the transfer. Yet, in XXXX I was sent a new Analysis by SPS, knowing Federal Laws only allows one completed per year, unless I request to have one completed. I was told there was a shortage of {$130.00}, which triggered my letter of dispute. \n\nTHERE WAS NO PART OF THIS LETTER THAT HAD CREDIBILITY! It is frightening to know that I am stuck with this Servicer until I either sell my home or refinance. \n\nEscrow Closure : My request to close Escrow, and SPS acknowledgment of closure on XX/XX/XXXX, was one more string of errors, ( see attached Escrow Payment change notice XXXX, Escrow Closure Request form, SPS Acknowledgement XXXX, and Escrow Closing Notice/Notification Escrow Closing XXXX. ) The form was supplied by SPS and clearly shows I no longer wanted \" both '' my Property Taxes and Insurance Impounded. I was sent a letter Acknowledging my escrow would close on XXXX if I didn't call and cancel this request. I called on XX/XX/XXXX to verify my escrow was closed and was told a check was sent for the balance of my Taxes, but the Insurance was still opened. I asked why and was told the Escrow Department would be contacted, and I would get a call within 3 days with an answer. How do you botch up something so simple, and with your own forms? \n\nI asked to speak with the escrow department and was told, I could only speak to Customer Service, who clearly did not understand the makings of an Escrow Account. I had never heard of a company that did not let you speak to this department. It is no wonder there are so many mistakes made. I asked to have the insurance check sent XXXX overnight since this was an error made by SPS, and my insurance was coming due within a few weeks. Plus my form clearly stated it was not longer SPS 's responsibility to pay taxes or insurance, ( even though they still held the insurance balance of my escrow account. ) I was told they would \" try '' to request the check and overnight it. I replied that is not good enough. \n\nTwo days later, I received a call from SPS stating a check was request was made that day, and he would internally, e-mail my request to have my check overnighted. One week later I received the check regular mail. SPS repeatedly has made mistakes, and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing me additional fees along the way. When an error was made in the servicing of my mortgage, SPS must either correct the error I identified, called \" notice of error '', or investigate the alleged error. SPS has routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate my complaints, or make necessary corrections. \n\nThis is probably a result of loading inaccurate and incomplete information into its servicing system, or even when their data is accurate, SPS still generated errors, because of their system failures and deficient programming. \n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting : XXXX : The results of my dispute from my report dated XX/XX/XXXX arrived on XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ) as certified accurate and unchanged. This is a gross misstatement and shows that SPS either has untrained employees is too busy to verify and correct the information or is a company who skips through federal compliance regulations hoping not to get caught in an audit by the CFPB. \n\nLooking at the attachment, \" XXXX Dispute with SPS '' is noticeably & erroneous based on a status date of XX/XX/XXXX : it fails to show loan transferred/sold, a recent payment made of {$2600.00}, ( also shown in error on the attached SPS Account summary, ) which is the total of the individual payments I made for XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$1300.00} the monthly payment, also shown in error on my report is shown as {$1300.00}, which was the payment I made in XXXX because of SPS 's inaccurate Escrow Analysis, which has disputed as of XX/XX/XXXX, ( see attachment, SPS Error Letter. ) The term is 40 years, with 32 years remaining, not 46 years. There is no 46-year term for mortgages. \n\nFinally, SPS felt a need to add, ( in error ) a comment : \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' This is a negative reporting remark, which can not be made after 7 years, ( it has been almost 10 years, ) the Modification completed by XXXX, ( see attachments XXXX  XXXX Credit Report change, & XXXX XXXX Mod ) was disputed & removed from all credit reports in XXXX, and can not be added back. \n\nXXXX  : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the results of my dispute against XXXX   XXXX XXXX & SPS ( see attachment, ). XXXX updated their information to now show the loan closed & transferred with the date of the last payment. \nXXXX : SPS, on the other hand, created the illusion I had two mortgages instead of one, & one of them was a new mortgage, ( dropping my credit scores. ) Account information '' it also needs many of the same corrections for based on the \" Date of last activity '' shown as XX/XX/XXXX, Loan Balance must be reduced to match \" Date of last Activity, '' but continues to state the original balance on transfer of my loan XX/XX/XXXX, \" Actual Payment, '' {$2600.00}, should match \" Scheduled Payment. '' The \" Months Reviewed '' state 2 payments reported it is should state 3 were reviewed, the monthly payment was updated but still wrong, since the status date remains unchanged at XX/XX/XXXX, the updated payment is based on my new payment as of XXXX, which no longer has an escrow account. \n\nUnder \" Historical Account information '' the months of XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX must be completed to show payment in the amount of {$1300.00} and XXXXXXXX XXXX payment must be corrected to show this payment as well. By failing to report the XXXX & XXXX payment amounts, that the payments made were \" Regular Payments '', not \" Trial Payments '' ( under a trial period for a loan modification, by failing to report the loan as transferred/sold, ( needs to be added, ) but most importantly by reporting a comment the \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan, '' ( MUST remove outdated negative information. ) it has caused my credit score to drop 120 points. All of these mistakes contributed to lowering my overall credit score. \n\nXXXX XXXX : Not only is XXXX XXXX reporting the same errors as XXXX, but instead of showing a \" Historical Account information '' XXXX XXXX XXXX format places a table under the \" Remarks '' \" Loan Modified under a Federal Government Plan. '' that \" RATES '' the payments for XXXX and XXXX as \" X '' which is defined as \" Unknown, '' once again indicating a \" Trial Payment '' under a Modification. Instead, it should have shown as \" OK '' under their Rating Key method. This is unreasonable, will not be tolerated misleading, uncalled for, and must be changed immediately. \n\nConcerning the above comments, I would like to add, I was not notified by SPS that they were reporting \" any '' information to the credit bureau 's, much less \" negative reporting '' concerning the type of mortgage I had. To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace period before any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one SPS received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and SPS had not even received all the data from BAC, ) SPS may not report during the resolution period, which is usually another 60 days. In my case, during the period discussed, my payment changed with SPS 3 times, and SPS just sent another notice dated XXXX, received XX/XX/XXXX. Stating they are again reviewing my concerns, yet SPS choose to ignore the State and Federal law and incorrectly began reporting on XXXX. Additionally, outdated information/negative reporting over 7 years old must not be reported. \n\nUnder the FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) prohibits false credit reporting of any type. A creditor must not supply information to a CRA that it knows ( or should know ) is inaccurate. That includes : misstating the balance due or reporting late payments when you paid timely. \n\nFailing to Follow Debt Dispute Procedures When you submit a written dispute about the accuracy of an item on your report, credit bureaus and your Servicer ( SPS ) must take certain actions in response. Their duties include conducting a reasonable investigation of your dispute, correcting any inaccurate information, or even removing the disputed debt from your credit report. There are a number of ways they can fall short of their duties. \n\nSome common violations by a CRA include failing to : Notify a creditor that you dispute the debt that it has reported, conduct a reasonable investigation of your dispute, or correct or delete any inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information within 30 days of the receiving notice of your dispute, refrain from continuing to submit information that it knows ( or should know ) is incorrect, conduct an internal investigation of your dispute within 30 days ( or 45 days if you supply additional information during the investigation. ) When a private investor such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owns the loan, the market drives the servicing fee. Generally, the fee depends on the underlying credit quality of the borrower. Servicing a loan with a higher quality credit rating brings in fewer fees because servicing costs are lower. Servicing a loan that has lower credit quality generates a higher fee because borrowers tend to default on this type of loan, which makes them more labor-intensive to service. How many borrowers have SPS supplied inaccurate information, in an effort to drive their fees up to and cost the investor thousands of dollars, by misleading them? \n\nBecause I have no say over who services my mortgage, I must depend on the CFPB to remain vigilant to ensure I get fair treatment. '' I can only hope the CFPB uncovers substantial evidence that SPS has engaged in significant and systemic misconduct, at nearly every stage of the mortgage servicing process. \nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, such as those described above. The CFPBs mortgage servicing rules require that servicer 's promptly credit payments and correct errors on request. \n\nI hope you take these remarks seriously by discussing these errors with SPS and making sure the corrections are made immediately. The information on my credit report should be prioritized, and when completed the FCRA states I am to be notified within 5 days. I would be glad to discuss anything you feel is not clear.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-18T00:26:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95630","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3377739","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2019-09-17T23:31:11.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To reiterate ; when a loan is transferred there is a 60 day grace <em>period</em> <em>before</em> any credit reporting may be made. \n\nWhen an Error Resolution Letter such as the one SPS received on XX/XX/XXXX, is received concerning mortgage payments, ( and SPS had not even received all the data from BAC, ) SPS may not report during the resolution <em>period</em>, which is usually another 60 days."]},"sort":[7.530864,"3377739"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10891123","_score":7.305875,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX US BANK XXXX XXXX : TRUSTEE XXXX XXXX : LAWYER TESTIMONY UNDER GOD. \nLeviticus 5:1 \" anyone who sins and is aware of it must testify before the lord and bring as his penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect or fault.\n\nFirst there is a bifurcation of the note and mortgage, debt collectors now have the account violation of FTC SEC IRS FINCEN XXXX SERVERAL OTHERS and violations of the FDCPA etc .... \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX FROM THE XXXX XXXX XXXX a XXXX based company and representatives of said company settled upon a HELOC LOAN with XXXX XXXX XXXX. We assumed the company was acting in good faith but after further investigation of the mortgage we found that the companies involved acted in bad faith. Falsification of submitted documents, signatures, recordings in the courts, double bookkeeping entries, and the transfer of the asset. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, U.S. BANK XXXX XXXX XXXX ( not in its official capacity solely as trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX, are apart of this fraudulent transfer of the asset. We noticed a discrepancies once were we contacted by XXXX XXXX XXXX that claimed payments were missed ( default ) and that immediate payment was needed or they would accelerate to foreclosure proceedings. XX/XX/XXXX was the referenced date in which a payment was made and accepted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. The payment included the 3 months of payments plus interest. XXXX XXXX  had direct access to the account to retrieve funds do to the account made payable was set up through autopay at XXXX XXXX  located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, Pa XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX claimed the same issue XXXX of XXXX in which payment was made again to XXXX XXXX XXXX and accepted. That is when we started to research the issue with payments and the account. We reached out to XXXX XXXX  to investigate the allegations made by XXXX XXXX XXXX that we were not making payments as scheduled from autopay out of the account held by XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX  informed us of the transaction history and found that XXXX XXXX DID INDEED receive payment electronically from the autopay set up on the account. There was no return funds from XXXX XXXX XXXX back to the account only payments sent. XXXX XXXX XXXX claimed that on the first of every month they would retrieve the payment, and then they would return the payment on the XXXX of every month. XXXX XXXX XXXX when asked claimed that they never received the payments and they returned what the did receive during that transaction. But after investigating the transaction with XXXX XXXX  we concluded that something was not right. XXXX XXXX  launched an investigation into the account which caused a domino affect into the hardships now faced by our family. With the account being on hold do to investigation it created economic hardships. Which affected our personal and business credit profiles, missed payments to other accounts and tons of pain and suffering. Which ended up with the account being closed. We experienced identity theft issues do to the negligence of XXXX XXXX XXXX and its agents and affiliates. XXXX XXXX XXXX then accelerated to foreclosure proceedings in which we were contacted by a lawyer based in XXXX. We were not properly served and did not receive any proper form of communication. From XXXX of XXXX Until XXXX of XXXX we tried to reach a conclusion with XXXX XXXX XXXX. We researched the transaction from the best of our knowledge with clean hands and honor. Due to the lack of information being shared by the companies, we could only gather as much information as publicly possible. XXXX XXXX US BANK XXXX XXXX. AND XXXX XXXX XXXX claimed that they did not have to disclose account information to the account holder because it was company policy. But in Pennsylvania the right to know law a adopted interpretation of the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, states we have right to full disclosure of any information. After several attempts and blatant refusal by the companies we pursued to gather what we could. Starting at the beginning, what is a mortgage? What type of mortgage do we have? What bank or banks are involved? etc.. We concluded with a few red flags starting with the settlement. Loan amount was for XXXX in which on the day of closing only about XXXX was deposited we asked why and was informed it went into the escrow account incase payments can not be made. So we looked into escrow accounts and according the IRS PUBLICATION 537 the buyers obligation is paid in full when the balance of purchase price is deposited into the escrow account. When the escrow account is established, you no longer rely on the buyer for the rest of the payment, but on the escrow arrangement. Which means they held another XXXX in the escrow account along with the funds deducted from the initial amount. Which led us further into what accounting means, double bookkeeping entry systems, and all that involved XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. We tracked the account all the way into a Fund held by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX being sold on the market. Which meant that our transaction was a secondary one and that we were never compensated and valuable consideration for the cashable item used by the bank to secure funding. We now know that the application was a cashable item and was pooled with other items and being serviced under one account. Which lead us into how the loan was structured and the identity of all parties. This information was not disclosed to us in anyway. We were unaware of the funds held in escrow by the title company the day of settlement. That they use false misleading business tactics like taking the escrow after the fact to mask what intentions they truly have. We found that banks can not lend there own money. We found that banks are borrowers of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM operating circular 9. We found that UCCC ( that all banks are intermediaries ). We found that banks invest on behalf of customers and investors. We are the customers, our taxpayer identification number was used in this transaction. Which means that this is a tax issue and according to IRS PUBLICATION 4681. In which the parties involved are falsifying documents submitting and not submitting tax forms using legalese to mislead cause economic harm etc. We have proof of the accounting from an independent audit, and almost positive that once full accounting is obtained we may also conclude all the violations this transaction. With further investigation we found that sharing account information with anyone outside the account holder is a violation major violation according to the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION etc... We have tried to settle the matter but all the parties involved have provided a safe avenue to redemption of the mortgage. We have a right to equitable redemption. We are the Owners of the accounts all proceeds rights titles interest chattels rents debits credits debentures derivatives. As these company are using unjust enrichment errors of omission, piracy, identity theft, bank levy, false tax reporting 's securities reporting financial statements agreements etc. filed with SEC and local and state departments of revenue etc.. So we ask some questions for clarity to foreclosure. \nDefinitions and Resources : FORECLOSURE. To shut out, to bar, to destroy an equity of redemption. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. A termination of all rights of the mortgagor or his grantee in the property covered by the mortgage. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX \nXXXX, XXXX. \nThe term is also loosely applied to any of the various methods, statutory or otherwise, known in different juris- dictions, of enforcing payment of the debt secured by a mortgage, by taking and selling the mortgaged estate. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX. \n\nUniform Commercial Code article 8 definitions : ( 1 ) \" Adverse claim '' means a claim that a claimant has a property interest in a financial asset and that it is a violation of the rights of the claimant for another person to hold, transfer, or deal with the financial asset.\n\n( 9 ) \" Financial asset, '' except as otherwise provided in Section 8-103, means : ( i ) a security ; ( ii ) an obligation of a person or a share, participation, or other interest in a person or in property or an enterprise of a person, which is, or is of a type, dealt in or traded on financial markets, or which is recognized in any area in which it is issued or dealt in as a medium for investment ; or ( as this applies because the Commercial Loan Agreement ) What is a mortgage? \nXXXX XXXX. XXXX  2 Definitions \" The literal meaning of the word \" mortgage '' is \" dead pledge '', 13 a mortuum vadium. 14 The term \" mortgage '' may be employed as meaning the debt secured by the mortgage ; 15 but in its true sense an ordinary mortgage is not a debt, 16 as the debt is the principle obligation, and the mortgage is generally regarded as merely an incident or accessory to the debt.17 A mortgage is an interest in land 18 created by a written instrument 19 providing security for the performance of a duty or payment of debt, 20 and is usually evidenced by a note. 21 ( do to the lack of signatures by the opposing party only our signatures to the contract are here ) Which makes the contract unenforceable and we sent commuications certified mail to the responsible parties with no response from all accept U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX that stated that XXXX XXXX is the party that needed to be addressed. They claimed they had no dealings with the transaction. Which was false, and according to the foreclosure case they were directly involved. \n\nThe term qualified mortgage means ( A ) any obligation ( including any participation or certificate of beneficial ownership therein ) which is principally secured by an interest in real property and which ( i ) is transferred to the REMIC on the startup day in exchange for regular or residual interests in the REMIC, ( ii ) is purchased by the REMIC within the 3-month period beginning on the startup day 26 USC 860 ( G ) ( A ) ( 3 ) What is a REMIC?\n\n26 USC 860D : For purposes of this title, the terms real estate mortgage investment conduit and REMIC mean any entity ( 1 ) to which an election to be treated as a REMIC applies for the taxable year and all prior taxable years, ( 4 ) as of the close of the 3rd month beginning after the startup day and at all times thereafter, substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified mortgages and permitted investments, ( B ) Inadvertent terminations If ( i ) an entity ceases to be a REMIC, 26 USC 856 : A corporation, trust, or association shall not be considered a real estate investment trust for any taxable year unless ( 1 ) it files with its return for the taxable year an election to be a real estate investment trust or has made such election for a previous taxable year, and such election has not been terminated or revoked under subsection ( g ) ; What must the REMIC do to foreclose on your property?\n\n26 USC 856 ( e ) SPECIAL RULES FOR FORECLOSURE PROPERTY ( 1 ) FORECLOSURE PROPERTY DEFINED For purposes of this part, the term foreclosure property means any real property ( including interests in real property ), and any personal property incident to such real property, acquired by the real estate investment trust as the result of such trust having bid in such property at foreclosure, or having otherwise reduced such property to ownership or possession by agreement or process of law, after there was default ( or default was imminent ) on a lease of such property or on an indebtedness which such property secured. Such term does not include property acquired by the real estate investment trust as a result of indebtedness arising from the sale or other disposition of property of the trust described in section 1221 ( a ) ( 1 ) which was not originally acquired as foreclosure property.\n\n26 USC 856 ( 5 ) TAXPAYER MUST MAKE ELECTION Property shall be treated as foreclosure property for purposes of this part only if the real estate investment trust so elects ( in the manner provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary ) on or before the due date ( including any extensions of time ) for filing its return of tax under this chapter for the taxable year in which such trust acquires such property. A real estate investment trust may revoke any such election for a taxable year by filing the revocation ( in the manner provided by the Secretary ) on or before the due date ( including any extension of time ) for filing its return of tax under this chapter for the taxable year. If a trust revokes an election for any property, no election may be made by the trust under this paragraph with respect to the property for any subsequent taxable year. \nWhat regulation are they talking about? lets take a look! \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Keep in mind that the taxpayer here is the REMIC, meaning the trustee who presides over the REMIC must make these elections and do everything in his fiduciary power NOT TO COMPROMISE THE TAX STATUS OF THE REMIC! !!!\n\n26 USC 856 ( g ) TERMINATION OF ELECTION ( 1 ) FAILURE TO QUALIFY An election under subsection ( c ) ( 1 ) made by a corporation, trust, or association shall terminate if the corporation, trust, or association is not a real estate investment trust to which the provisions of this part apply for the taxable year with respect to which the election is made, or for any succeeding taxable year unless paragraph ( 5 ) applies. Such termination shall be effective for the taxable year for which the corporation, trust, or association is not a real estate investment trust to which the provisions of this part apply, and for all succeeding taxable years.\n\n( 2 ) REVOCATION An election under subsection ( c ) ( 1 ) made by a corporation, trust, or association may be revoked by it for any taxable year after the first taxable year for which the election is effective.\n\nA revocation under this paragraph shall be effective for the taxable year in which made and for all succeeding taxable years. Such revocation must be made on or before the 90th day after the first day of the first taxable year for which the revocation is to be effective. Such revocation shall be made in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulations.\n\n( 3 ) ELECTION AFTER TERMINATION OR REVOCATION Except as provided in paragraph ( 4 ), if a corporation, trust, or association has made an election under subsection ( c ) ( 1 ) and such election has been terminated or revoked under paragraph ( 1 ) or paragraph ( 2 ), such corporation, trust, or association ( and any successor corporation, trust, or association ) shall not be eligible to make an election under subsection ( c ) ( 1 ) for any taxable year prior to the fifth taxable year which begins after the first taxable year for which such termination or revocation is effective.\n\nThe servicer or attorney is liable for the tax, or whoever did not transfer it in time. Keep in mind that if the REMIC takes the defaulted note and transfers it after the 3 month deadline the whole REMIC loses it's tax status.\n\nHow does a REMIC acquire property?\n\nFormation and Initial Transfer of Assets : When a REMIC is initially formed, it acquires a pool of mortgages or mortgage-backed assets from a transferor, typically using a trust agreement. This transfer is often part of the REMICs creation, where the transferor places qualifying mortgages or mortgage-related assets into the REMIC structure .\n\nForm 1066, U.S. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ( REMIC ) Income Tax Return, is then used by the REMIC to report its income and tax elections but is not required to formally acquire the property.\n\nForeclosure and Election for Foreclosure Property : When the REMIC acquires property through foreclosure or similar means ( if a borrower defaults on a mortgage within the REMIC ), it can make an election to treat the property as foreclosure property. This is done on Form 1066 by attaching a statement to the form for the tax year in which the REMIC acquires the property.\n\nThis election classifies the foreclosed property as foreclosure property, which is important for favorable tax treatment, as it avoids having the income from the property treated as prohibited income for REMIC purposes.\n\nReporting Requirements : While Form 1066 is the primary reporting form, theres no form specifically required to acquire property into the REMIC. Instead, the acquisition is documented through legal agreements and records with the trust administrator, often filed in county records for foreclosures.\n\nSchedule Q ( Form 1066 ) is also used by the REMIC to report information to residual interest holders, including details about the income and property held by the REMIC.\n\nForm 1066 Statement : This statement is an attachment to Form 1066, U.S. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ( REMIC ) Income Tax Return.\n\nIt includes details about the property that the REMIC acquired through foreclosure and an explicit election under IRC 856 ( e ) to treat the property as foreclosure property.\n\nPurpose : This election allows the REMIC to classify the property as foreclosure property for tax purposes, meaning it can avoid taxes on income that would otherwise be considered non-qualifying income.\n\nForm 1099-A : Form 1099-A is issued by a lender when there is an acquisition or abandonment of secured property, typically by a financial institution to report the acquisition or abandonment of property to both the IRS and the borrower .\n\nPurpose : For the REMIC, Form 1099-A is relevant only if the REMIC must report the acquisition or abandonment of a secured property ( typically when the borrower defaults and the REMIC acquires the property ). The REMIC might use Form 1099-A to document the foreclosure for reporting purposes.\n\nKey Detail : Form 1099-A is sent to the IRS and the borrower, while the election statement attached to Form 1066 is only for the IRS to claim the foreclosure property status.\n\nand now the entire fund has been compromised .....\n\nFORM 56 AND FORM 56F were issued to the IRS on all the financial institutions involved and all other persons breach of this relationship lack of disclosure etc ....\n\nthe debt was discharged and accepted by the internal revenue service copies have been sent to the company and they have not returned those copies In order to transfer or assign a mortgage one must satisfy the mortgage meaning it was paid in exchange for the asset. I notice the fraudulent recording of the mortgage on public record as there were issues with chain of title and recording and by using affiliations and quid pro quo tactics these institutions are stealing properties all across the United States. We have requested an audit from the internal revenue service for the matter. \n\nthe company discharges its obligations with the US Treasury. All deposits notes bills bonds coupon etc ... .as per XXXX prospectus XXXX XXXX XXXX  is the registered agent to U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX and is now liable for damages we seek... \n\nthis is a tax issue, payment means to perform and these companies did not perform therefore we revoke there power of attorney over the transaction. We have a right to opt of the sharing of our information. These companies have a fiduciary duty to handle these accounts properly and these companies listed are repeat offenders of major violations and have been disciplined as such. Yet they continue to defraud the public interest the government the financial industry etc. The asset has been foreclosed on and sold and threats have been made to us. As we seek equitable relief and to restore our rights we have now begun alerting the property authorities. We pray for relief in the matter In god we trust. \n\nIssues : Lack and Failure of Consideration Failure to Comply with Notice Provisions Failure to Comply with Release Provisions Electing the fraud Remedy Non-justified threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution or financial ruin Waiver of Right Privilege Advantage or Benefit Non-waiver Provisions Unclean hands Doctrine Absence of impairment of security tender of payment etc...\n\nFollowing disciplinary actions as to the complaint being made. \nCFPB TAKES ACTION AGAINST XXXX XXXX  FOR ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND VIOLATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ORDER CEO XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION FROM XXXX. \n\nU.S. BANK XXXX XXXX FINCEN PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS. XX/XX/XXXX CASE LAW FOR XXXX V. US BANK SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITIES are powerful financial tools. Can be either on and offshore and normally Off-balance sheet, bankruptcy remote, and illegitimate uses. They can be structures that lend themselves to money laundering, disguised as loans of revenue misstate earning through wash trades, concealment of losses embezzlement and accounting improprieties the asset was granted conveyed and transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by the OWNER of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as true owner of the asset. Poa filled with the internal revenue service The account has been pledged and assigned to the US Treasury per UCC 1 & 3 filed in the great state of NEW YORK. non UCC agricultural lien... \n\nWe are left at alerting the regulatory authorities for this breach of fiduciary duty and a host of other violations. CFPB, XXXX, SEC, FDIC, FTC, FBI, IRS, TREASURY, SSA, FINCEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL etc .... \n\nwe tried to upload supporting documents but they wont take","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-05T17:59:11.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"191XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10891123","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fay Servicing, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-22T08:51:54.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We <em>concluded</em> with a few red flags starting with the settlement. Loan amount was for XXXX in which on the day of <em>closing</em> only about XXXX was deposited we asked why and was informed it went into the escrow <em>account</em> incase payments can not be made. So we looked into escrow <em>accounts</em> and according the IRS PUBLICATION 537 the buyers obligation is paid in full when the balance of purchase price is deposited into the escrow <em>account</em>."]},"sort":[7.305875,"10891123"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10852983","_score":7.305875,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX : LXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nXXXX XXXX \" anyone who sins and is aware of it must testify before the lord and bring as his penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect or fault. \n\nFirst there is a bifurcation of the note and mortgage, debt collectors now have the account violation of FTC SEC IRS XXXX XXXX XXXX OTHERS and violations of the FDCPA etc .... \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX FROM THE XXXX XXXX XXXX a XXXX based company and representatives of said company settled upon a XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX. We assumed the company was acting in good faith but after further investigation of the mortgage we found that the companies involved acted in bad faith. Falsification of submitted documents, signatures, recordings in the courts, double bookkeeping entries, and the transfer of the asset. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( not in its official capacity solely as trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX, are apart of this fraudulent transfer of the asset. We noticed a discrepancies once were we contacted by FAY SERVICING LLC that claimed payments were missed ( default ) and that immediate payment was needed or they would accelerate to foreclosure proceedings. XX/XX/XXXX was the referenced date in which a payment was made and accepted by FAY SERVICING LLC. The payment included the 3 months of payments plus interest. FAY SERVICING had direct access to the account to retrieve funds do to the account made payable was set up through autopay at XXXX XXXX  located at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FAY SERVICING LLC claimed the same issue XXXX of XXXX in which payment was made again to FAY SERVICING LLC and accepted. That is when we started to research the issue with payments and the account. We reached out to XXXX Bank to investigate the allegations made by FAY SERVICING LLC that we were not making payments as scheduled from autopay out of the account held by XXXX BANK. XXXX BANK informed XXXX of the transaction history and found thaXXXX FAY SERVICING DID INDEED receive payment electronically from the autopay set up on the account. There was no return funds from FAY SERVICING LLC back to the account only payments sent. FAY SERVICING XXXX claimed that on the first of every month they would retrieve the payment, and then they would return the payment on the XXXX of every month. FAY SERVICING XXXX when asked claimed that they never received the payments and they returned what the did receive during that transaction. But after investigating the transaction with XXXX BANK we concluded that something was not right. XXXX BANK launched an investigation into the account which caused a domino affect into the hardships now faced by our family. With the account being on hold do to investigation it created economic hardships. Which affected our personal and business credit profiles, missed payments to other accounts and tons of pain and suffering. Which ended up with the account being closed. We experienced identity theft issues do to the negligence of FAY SERVICING XXXX and its agents and affiliates. FAY SERVICING XXXX then accelerated to foreclosure proceedings in which we were contacted by a lawyer based in XXXX. We were not properly served and did not receive any proper form of communication. From XXXX of XXXX Until XXXX of XXXX we tried to reach a conclusion with FAY SERVICING XXXX. We researched the transaction from the best of our knowledge with clean hands and honor. Due to the lack of information being shared by the companies, we could only gather as much information as publicly possible. FAY SERVICING XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claimed that they did not have to disclose account information to the account holder because it was company policy. But in Pennsylvania the right to know law a adopted interpretation of the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, states we have right to full disclosure of any information. After several attempts and blatant refusal by the companies we pursued to gather what we could. Starting at the beginning, what is a mortgage? What type of mortgage do we have? What bank or banks are involved? etc.. We concluded with a few red flags starting with the settlement. Loan amount was for XXXX in which on the day of closing only about XXXX was deposited we asked why and was informed it went into the escrow account incase payments can not be made. So we looked into escrow accounts and according the IRS XXXX XXXX the buyers obligation is paid in full when the balance of purchase price is deposited into the escrow account. When the escrow account is established, you no longer rely on the buyer for the rest of the payment, but on the escrow arrangement. Which means they held another XXXX in the escrow account along with the funds deducted from the initial amount. Which led us further into what accounting means, double bookkeeping entry systems, and all that involved XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. We tracked the account all the way into a Fund held by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX being sold on the market. Which meant that our transaction was a secondary one and that we were never compensated and valuable consideration for the cashable item used by the bank to secure funding. We now know that the application was a cashable item and was pooled with other items and being serviced under XXXX account. Which lead us into how the loan was structured and the identity of all parties. This information was not disclosed to us in anyway. We were unaware of the funds held in escrow by the title company the day of settlement. That they use false misleading business tactics like taking the escrow after the fact to mask what intentions they truly have. We found that banks can not lend there own money. We found that banks are borrowers of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM operating circular XXXX. We found that XXXX ( that all banks are XXXX ). We found that banks invest on behalf of customers and investors. We are the customers, our taxpayer identification number was used in this transaction. Which means that this is a tax issue and according to IRS XXXX XXXX. In which the parties involved are falsifying documents submitting and not submitting tax forms using legalese to mislead cause economic harm etc. We have proof of the accounting from an independent audit, and almost positive that once full accounting is obtained we may also conclude all the violations this transaction. With further investigation we found that sharing account information with anyone outside the account holder is a violation major violation according to the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION etc... We have tried to settle the matter but all the parties involved have provided a safe avenue to redemption of the mortgage. We have a right to equitable redemption. We are the Owners of the accounts all proceeds rights titles interest chattels rents debits credits debentures derivatives. As these company are using unjust enrichment errors of omission, piracy, identity theft, bank XXXX, false tax reporting 's securities reporting financial statements agreements etc. filed with SEC and local and state departments of revenue etc.. So we ask some questions for clarity to foreclosure. \nDefinitions and Resources : FORECLOSURE. To shut out, to bar, to destroy an equity of redemption. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Okl. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. A termination of all rights of the mortgagor or his grantee in the property covered by the mortgage. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX, XXXX. \nThe term is also loosely applied to any of the various methods, statutory or otherwise, known in different juris- dictions, of enforcing payment of the debt secured by a mortgage, by taking and selling the mortgaged estate. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX So. XXXX, XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX article XXXX definitions : ( XXXX ) \" Adverse claim '' means a claim that a claimant has a property interest in a financial asset and that it is a violation of the rights of the claimant for another person to hold, transfer, or deal with the financial asset. \n( XXXX ) \" Financial asset, '' except as otherwise provided in Section XXXX, means : ( i ) a security ; ( ii ) an obligation of a person or a share, participation, or other interest in a person or in property or an enterprise of a person, which is, or is of a type, dealt in or traded on financial markets, or which is recognized in any area in which it is issued or dealt in as a medium for investment ; or ( as this applies because the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) What is a mortgage? \nXXXX XXXX. Mortgages XXXX Definitions \" The literal meaning of the word \" mortgage '' is \" dead pledge '', XXXX a mortuum vadium. XXXX The term \" mortgage '' XXXX be employed as meaning the debt secured by the mortgage ; XXXX but in its true sense an ordinary mortgage is not a debt, XXXX as the debt is the principle obligation, and the mortgage is generally regarded as merely an incident or accessory to the XXXX A mortgage is an interest in land XXXX created by a written instrument XXXX providing security for the performance of a duty or payment of debt, XXXX and is usually evidenced by a note. XXXX ( do to the lack of signatures by the opposing party only our signatures to the contract are here ) Which makes the contract unenforceable and we sent communications certified mail to the responsible parties with no response from all accept XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX that stated that Fay Servicing is the party that needed to be addressed. They claimed they had no dealings with the transaction. Which was false, and according to the foreclosure case they were directly involved. \n\nThe term qualified mortgage means ( A ) any obligation ( including any participation or certificate of beneficial ownership therein ) which is principally secured by an interest in real property and which ( i ) is transferred to the XXXX on the startup day in exchange for regular or residual interests in the XXXX, ( ii ) is purchased by the XXXX within the XXXX period beginning on the startup day XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX G ) ( A ) ( XXXX ) What is a XXXX? \nXXXX XXXX XXXX : For purposes of this title, the terms real estate mortgage investment conduit and XXXX mean any entity ( XXXX ) to which an election to be treated as a XXXX applies for the taxable year and all prior taxable years, ( XXXX ) as of the close of the XXXX month beginning after the startup day and at all times thereafter, substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified mortgages and permitted investments, ( B ) Inadvertent terminations If ( i ) an entity ceases to be a XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : A corporation, trust, or XXXX shall not be considered a real estate investment trust for any taxable year unless ( XXXX ) it files with its return for the taxable year an election to be a real estate investment trust or has made such election for a previous taxable year, and such election has not been terminated or revoked under subsection ( g ) ; What must the XXXX do to foreclose on your property? \nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) SPECIAL RULES FOR FORECLOSURE PROPERTY ( XXXX ) FORECLOSURE PROPERTY DEFINED For purposes of this part, the term foreclosure property means any real property ( including interests in real property ), and any personal property incident to such real property, acquired by the real estate investment trust as the result of such trust having bid in such property at foreclosure, or having otherwise reduced such property to ownership or possession by agreement or process of law, after there was default ( or default was imminent ) on a lease of such property or on an indebtedness which such property secured. Such term does not include property acquired by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a result of indebtedness arising from the sale or other disposition of property of the trust described in section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) which was not originally acquired as foreclosure property. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) TAXPAYER MUST MAKE ELECTION Property shall be treated as foreclosure property for purposes of this part only if the real estate investment trust so elects ( in the manner provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary ) on or before the due date ( including any extensions of time ) for filing its return of tax under this chapter for the taxable year in which such trust acquires such property. A real estate investment trust XXXX revoke any such election for a taxable year by filing the revocation ( in the manner provided by the XXXX ) on or before the due date ( including any extension of time ) for filing its return of tax under this chapter for the taxable year. If a trust revokes an election for any property, no election XXXX be made by the trust under this paragraph with respect to the property for any subsequent taxable year. \nWhat regulation are they talking about? lets take a look! \nhttps : XXXX Keep in mind that the taxpayer here is the XXXX, meaning the trustee who presides over the XXXX must XXXX these elections and do everything in his fiduciary power NOT TO COMPROMISE THE TAX STATUS OF THE XXXX! XXXX!! \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( g ) TERMINATION OF ELECTION ( XXXX ) FAILURE TO QUALIFY An election under subsection ( c ) ( XXXX ) made by a corporation, trust, or XXXX shall terminate if the corporation, trust, or association is not a real estate investment trust to which the provisions of this part apply for the taxable year with respect to which the election is made, or for any succeeding taxable year unless paragraph ( XXXX ) applies. Such termination shall be effective for the taxable year for which the corporation, trust, or association is not a real estate investment trust to which the provisions of this part apply, and for all succeeding taxable years. \n( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX election under subsection ( c ) ( XXXX ) made by a corporation, trust, or association XXXX be revoked by it for any taxable year after the first taxable year for which the election is effective. \nA revocation under this paragraph shall be effective for the taxable year in which made and for all succeeding taxable years. Such revocation must be made on or before the XXXX day after the first day of the first taxable year for which the revocation is to be effective. Such revocation shall be made in such manner as the XXXX shall prescribe by regulations. \n( XXXX ) ELECTION AFTER TERMINATION OR REVOCATION Except as provided in paragraph ( XXXX ), if a corporation, trust, or association has made an election under subsection ( c ) ( XXXX ) and such election has been terminated or revoked under paragraph ( XXXX ) or paragraph ( XXXX ), such corporation, trust, or association ( and any successor corporation, trust, or association ) shall not be eligible to make an election under subsection ( c ) ( XXXX ) for any taxable year prior to the fifth taxable year which begins after the first taxable year for which such termination or revocation is effective. \nThe servicer or attorney is liable for the tax, or whoever did not transfer it in time. Keep in mind that if the XXXX takes the defaulted note and transfers it after the 3 month deadline the whole XXXX loses it's tax status. \nHow does a XXXX acquire property? \nFormation and Initial Transfer of Assets : When a XXXX is initially formed, it acquires a pool of mortgages or mortgage-backed assets from a transferor, typically using a trust agreement. This transfer is often part of the XXXX  creation, where the transferor places qualifying mortgages or mortgage-related assets into the XXXX structure XXXX \nForm XXXX, XXXX Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ( XXXX ) Income Tax Return, is then used by the XXXX to report its income and tax elections but is not required to formally acquire the property. \nForeclosure and XXXX for Foreclosure XXXX : When the XXXX acquires property through foreclosure or similar means ( if a borrower defaults on a mortgage within the XXXX ), it can make an election to treat the property as foreclosure property. This is done on Form XXXX by attaching a statement to the form for the tax year in which the XXXX acquires the property. \nThis election classifies the foreclosed property as foreclosure property, which is important for favorable tax treatment, as it avoids having the income from the property treated as prohibited income for XXXX purposes. \nReporting Requirements : While Form XXXX is the primary reporting form, theres no form specifically required to acquire property into the XXXX. Instead, the acquisition is documented through legal agreements and records with the trust XXXX, often filed in county records for foreclosures. \nSchedule Q ( Form XXXX ) is also used by the XXXX to report information to residual interest holders, including details about the income and property held by the XXXX. \n\nForm XXXX Statement : This statement is an attachment to Form XXXX, XXXX Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ( XXXX ) Income Tax Return. \nIt includes details about the property that the XXXX acquired through foreclosure and an explicit election under IRC XXXX ( XXXX ) to treat the property as foreclosure property. \nPurpose : This election allows the XXXX to classify the property as foreclosure property for tax purposes, meaning it can avoid taxes on income that would otherwise be considered non-qualifying income. \nForm XXXX : Form XXXX is issued by a lender when there is an acquisition or abandonment of secured property, typically by a financial institution to report the acquisition or abandonment of property to both the IRS and the borrower XXXX \nPurpose : For the XXXX, Form XXXX is relevant only if the XXXX must report the acquisition or abandonment of a secured property ( typically when the borrower defaults and the XXXX acquires XXXX property ). The XXXX might use Form XXXX to document the foreclosure for reporting purposes. \nKey Detail : Form XXXX is sent to the IRS and the borrower, while the election statement attached to Form XXXX is only for the IRS to XXXX the foreclosure property status. \nand now the entire fund has been compromised ..... \nFORM XXXX AND FORM XXXX were issued to the IRS on all the financial institutions involved and all other persons breach of this relationship lack of disclosure etc .... \n\nIn order to transfer or assign a mortgage one must satisfy the mortgage meaning it was paid in exchange for the asset. I notice the fraudulent recording of the mortgage on public record as there were issues with chain of title and recording and by using affiliations and quid pro quo tactics these institutions are stealing properties all across the United States. We have requested an audit from the internal revenue service for the matter. \n\nthe company discharges its obligations with the XXXX Treasury. All deposits notes bills bonds coupon etc ... .as per XXXX prospectus XXXX XXXX company is the registered agent to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and is now liable for damages we seek... \n\nthis is a tax issue, payment means to perform and these companies did not perform therefore we revoke there power of attorney over the transaction. We have a right to opt of the sharing of our information. These companies have a fiduciary duty to handle these accounts properly and these companies listed are repeat offenders of major violations and have been disciplined as such. Yet they continue to defraud the public interest the government the financial industry etc. The asset has been foreclosed on and sold and threats have been made to us. As we seek equitable relief and to restore our rights we have now begun alerting the property authorities. We pray for relief in the matter In XXXX we trust. \n\nIssues : Lack and Failure of Consideration Failure to Comply with Notice Provisions Failure to Comply with Release Provisions Electing the fraud Remedy Non-justified threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution or financial ruin XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or Benefit Non-waiver Provisions Unclean hands Doctrine Absence of impairment of security tender of payment etc... \n\nFollowing disciplinary actions as to the complaint being made. \nCFPB TAKES ACTION AGAINST FAY SERVICING FOR ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND VIOLATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ORDER XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION FROM XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS. XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITIES are powerful financial tools. Can be either on and offshore and normally Off-balance sheet, bankruptcy remote, and illegitimate uses. They can be structures that lend themselves to money laundering, disguised as loans of revenue misstate earning through wash trades, concealment of losses embezzlement and accounting improprieties the asset was granted conveyed and transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST by the OWNER of FROM THE MUSCLE INVESTMENTS as true owner of the asset. Poa filled with the internal revenue service The account has been pledged and assigned to the XXXX Treasury per XXXX XXXX & XXXX filed in the great state of XXXX XXXX. non XXXX agricultural XXXX... \n\nWe are left at alerting the regulatory authorities for this breach of fiduciary duty and a host of other violations. CFPB, XXXX, SEC, FDIC, FTC, FBI, IRS, TREASURY, XXXX, XXXX, ATTORNEY GENERAL etc .... \n\nwe tried to upload supporting documents but they wont take","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-20T17:59:22.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"191XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10852983","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fay Servicing, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-20T17:45:46.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We <em>concluded</em> with a few red flags starting with the settlement. Loan amount was for XXXX in which on the day of <em>closing</em> only about XXXX was deposited we asked why and was informed it went into the escrow <em>account</em> incase payments can not be made. So we looked into escrow <em>accounts</em> and according the IRS XXXX XXXX the buyers obligation is paid in full when the balance of purchase price is deposited into the escrow <em>account</em>."]},"sort":[7.305875,"10852983"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3052291","_score":6.407461,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"A ) Intro : Fraudulent Submission to Debt Collection Agencies & Others On or about XX/XX/XXXX [ after a 5+ year stint trying to gain up most favorable resolution ] ; judgment by Superior Courts of XXXX County has finally been served but not before substantial damage ( s ) had been done from trying to resolve every illegal aspect set-forth by Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers for simply complaining being delivered a cockroach pest infested slum conditioned dump. \n\nSo a simple [ but rightful and legal Former Tenant dispute ] against Former Landlord led to Former Landlord intentionally breaching lease agreement contract and intentionally to have violated Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act ; then after conducting such negligence that led to being \" Wrongfully Evicted ''! \n\nFormer Landlord drummed up false allegations and fraudulently submitted me to numerous debt collection agencies and various other agencies in manner to collect on a debt I never was responsible for ; then intentionally gave no cooperation for resolve ; while intentionally failed to have made, any type of appropriate resolve prior to Superior Court Judge to have finalized her XX/XX/XXXX decision. \n\nIn manner how Superior Court Judge rendered judgment ; Superior Court judge did not relieve full story within in it's entirety of truth to what actually was set-forth before courts in a self-representing manner so resolve could be gained in full against negligence and fraudulent misconduct. In Superior Court Judge 's XX/XX/XXXX Minute Entry ; confirmation can be found to confirm Superior Court Judge did not relieve full story ; however, attached supporting documentation can fill the gaps to being fraudulently submitted to debt collection agencies. \n\nB ) About Attached Supporting Documentation : Due to in-depth-ness of Pure Fraud that involved Identity theft and Theft by Fraud ; without my presence to give testimony to each attached document ; and because, supporting documentation upload is limited to 10MB, not all documentation to support Consumer Complaint may upload ; but that which can be uploaded will simply reveal at a glance Fraudulent Misconduct of Pure Fraud, Identity theft, and Theft by Fraud and Fraudulent submission to debt collection agencies. \n\nBecause Superior Courts failed to relieve full story of circumstances and only gave a summation ; in essence to lessen any considerable confusion that could occur from readings hereof and/or from attached documents ; it might be much easier to [ first and foremost ] review Superior Court 's documented Minute Entries from date of ... \n\n1 ) XX/XX/XXXX where expresses \" I did nothing wrong '' and was not the party to have breached lease and violated Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act.\n\n2 ) By doing so? \n\nIt can become more understandable to my mentioning actions taken by Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers from onset of dispute ; along with any and all other agencies used to help them carry out their Fraudulent actions ; all parties involved was set to gain profits out of and from negligent misconduct which makes for Pure Fraud that involves identity theft, and Theft by Fraud ; as to my strong belief, that! \n\nFormer Landlord and/or anyone of his Co-Conspirers falsified a document to lease agreement contract thus stole my identity by forging my signature to make it appear as though I signature signed the false document in manner falsified document could match with their false allegation they set-forth in courts as defense ; by stating.. \n\nPlaintiff, without Defendant 's permission or release, surrendered possession of keys and apartment on XX/XX/XXXX. In doing so, Plaintiff willfully and intentionally breached the rental agreement to which he was a party. \n\nProvided in \" Section C '' as follows is \" Background Scope & Analysis '' that brings to forefront action of Fraudulent Misconduct worthy to be reported for Consumer Attention Getting Action ; Section C helps substantiate attached documents ; and attached documents help substantiates my \" Consumer Complaint '' to how Fraud, Identity theft, and Theft by Fraud occurred as never should have been submitted to debt agencies. \n\nC ) Scope & Background Analysis : On or about XX/XX/XXXX lease agreement contract was entered into with former Landlord XXXX  XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AZ XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX because I complained to [ former landlord ] who intentionally delivered a cockroach pest infested slum conditioned dump that needed much remedy and repair. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX a dispute onset from my written notification expressing being delivered a cockroach pest infested slum conditioned dump ; and hereafter and from this point forward, Former Landlord and his co-conspirers failed to perform any duties held within the lease agreement contract ; or in other words, Former Landlord intentionally breached lease agreement and intentionally violated Arizona Residential Landlord Statues. \n\nAccording to Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act statue Article 5. Retaliatory Action 33-1381, Retaliatory conduct prohibited establishes a Landlord may not retaliate by brining or threatening to bring an action for possession after a Tenant complained to landlord of a violation under section 33-1324. \n\nI made numerous written complaints expressing to Former Landlord infractions that violated Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act statue 33-1324. According to Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act Article 4 Remedies statue 33-1361 Non-compliance by the landlord ; establishes if a landlord failed to make remedy within five ( 5 ) days of written notification the lease agreement contract terminates. \n\nInstead of Former Landlord making resolution or to have made mutual resolve no later than noon on date of XX/XX/XXXX to mutually term lease ; Former Landlord intentionally maintained me to lease agreement with no intentions ever settling any matters but rather elected to expense time, money, and effort avoiding accepting responsibilities and liabilities for their negligent misconduct ; that came to be discovered as \" Fraud ''. \n\nD ) Former Landlord with Co-Conspirers Wrongfully Sued to Evict : With efforts to wrongfully gain possession by prohibited retaliatory misconduct. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX alleging Former Landlord hired an attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX [ that together working in harmony ] along with XXXX XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AZ XXXX [ who is named within the lease as Property Manager ] intentionally and illegally made it appear as though I was the \" at fault party '' to have breached the lease. \n\nPrior to illegal act of being wrongfully evicted ; Former Landlord \" prohibited by law '' retaliated numerous times before bringing an Eviction Action against me as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the party to have \" legally '' made it appear as though Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX had every legal right to evict, by citing, I failed to pay rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX ; but yet, rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX was contract termed as FREE ; therefore, the act itself was intentional breach of lease agreement and of wrongful eviction. \n\nE ) Motive for Committing Fraud by Wrongful Eviction : Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act Article 4 Remedies statue 33-1361 establishes ... if there is a noncompliance by the landlord with section 33-1324 materially effecting health and safety, tenant may deliver a written notice to the landlord specifying acts and omissions constituting the breach, the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than five days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied in five days. \n\nWhen take into account Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX intentionally breached entire lease agreement contract by failing to perform lease agreement contract obligated duties ; plus, intentionally violated statues of Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act, then further take into account, that? \n\na ) Former Landlord failed to move me to another rental unit as mutual resolve prior to noon on XX/XX/XXXX b ) Former Landlord failed to make any remedies to rental unit # XXXX prior to noon on XX/XX/XXXX. \nc ) Former Landlord had no intentions to mutually term lease agreement by noon on XX/XX/XXXX. \nd ) Because Former Landlord failed to come to a mutual resolve no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX ) From on or about XX/XX/XXXX that moved through XX/XX/XXXX I delivered numerous written notifications requesting Former Landlord to make remedy to former rental unit # XXXX  ; but no remedies were ever made. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX actions that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company under took filing a false \" Complaint Eviction Action constituted intentional breach of lease agreement that meant under Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act statue 33-1321.\n\nFormer Landlord had an obligated duty to return my move-in costs of security deposit of {$50.00} dollars for securing a unit and return pro-rated expense of {$190.00} expensed for XX/XX/XXXX rent ; but yet, when learned from my written notification ( s ) of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I wanted to mutually term the lease ; Former Landlord had no intention ever returning move-in costs of {$240.00}. \n\nBecause I had interest to mutually term lease agreement by noon on XX/XX/XXXX ; Former Landlord knew he would be losing my business of a 6 month lease agreement term that amounted to {$3000.00} dollars. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX Former Landlord teamed with XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and on XX/XX/XXXX ; Former Landlord and his co-conspirers wrongfully sued to evict to have made it appear as though I was the \" at fault '' party to have failed to pay rent for XX/XX/XXXX which means? \n\nFormer Landlord 's only true intentions were to commit FRAUD which extents prior to lease agreement contract to have commenced into effect but took pursuing civil legal action in Superior Courts of XXXX County before cold hard facts of Theft by Fraud, Identity Theft, and Pure Fraud could unravel in full. \n\nF ) How Action of Fraud By Wrongful Eviction Was Masked : The act of Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their representing Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to have filed a sue to evict action in court of law was not only an act to avoid accepting responsibility liability for their negligent misconduct. \n\nThe act of Former Landlord and his co-conspirers to have falsely filed a Complaint Eviction Action in small claims judicial was mere smoke and mirrors to mask the act of committing FRAUD! \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I filed my answer reply to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's fraudulent and falsified \" Complaint Eviction Action '' ; included within my answer reply were my exhibit of \" Concession Addendum '' exhibiting XX/XX/XXXX rent was contract termed as FREE. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I was set to appear to court to defense against Former Landlord 's falsified allegation ( to have allegedly ) failed to pay rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX in essence Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX could not gain judgment by default ; for if held true, that if, Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX had every legal right to sue to evict for my failure to pay rent for XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFormer Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX would not have voluntarily dismissed their own small claims court case on XX/XX/XXXX without prejudice but rather allowed for court Judge of smalls claims judicial to settle any dispute to whether or not suing to evict was proper and the most needed action worthy to be carried out, but? \n\nAction taken by Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. though their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were of no accident but rather an intentional strategic act voluntarily dismissing their small claims court case for purpose I would not appear to testify against their false Complaint Eviction Action '' as any judge to have resided over my testimony and evidence immediately would have seen rent payment was not due until XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company filed a false \" Complaint Eviction Action '' cause their intent was not to settle any matters but rather commit FRAUD by making it legally appear as though I would be the at fault party to have failed to pay XX/XX/XXXX rent in manner to keep and maintain my move-in costs of {$240.00}, and in manner to keep expensed court costs of {$45.00} dollars it cost for me to defend against a false allegation ; while all at the same time, profit gain legal fees, and other costs deemed by Former Landlord despite their negligence ; but as so happened to be? \n\nOn or XX/XX/XXXX I gave spoils to Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's fraudulent act of making false allegation in small claims courts of justice whence I filed my court answer reply to being wrongfully evicted, as you would think?\n\nFormer Landlord and his Co-Conspirers would have ceased their Fraudulent Misconduct on this day of XX/XX/XXXX ; but Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers were non-phased, they simply had more than one ( 1 ) way to commit FRAUD at getting me submitted to Debt Collection agencies. \n\nG ) Former Landlord and his Co-conspirers Forced Civil Legal Action : On or about XX/XX/XXXX hereafter XXXX XXXX XXXX dismissed their falsely filed and fraudulent \" Complaint Eviction Action '' ; I made attempts to make resolve with Former Landlord in manner to recover incurred damages no later than XX/XX/XXXX ; and alerting if no resolve was made by XX/XX/XXXX, I would pursue civil legal action. \n\nInstead of Former Landlord making attempt ( s ) to make resolve no later than XXXX XXXX? \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX Former Landlord delivered a \" Move Out Statement '' alleging debt owed {$3400.00} to which I did not understand such charges since rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX was contract termed as free. \n\nInstead of Former Landlord coming to a resolve or resolution to avoid any type of legal proceedings? \n\nFormer Landlord directed matters to their attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who on or about XX/XX/XXXX delivered written notification citing \" Please be advised that my client has no intention to settle this matter with you because my client did nothing wrong '' ; then proceeded to cite in belief, their client, but my former landlord [ XXXX  XXXX at XXXX XXXX ] had every right to pursue eviction action, then on top of this action? \n\nFormer Landlord with their representing attorney added in a touch of intimidation and threat by citing \" If you pursue legal action against our client, we will take all legal action necessary to recover from you all damages, costs and attorney 's fees incurred with defending XXXX at XXXX [ formally known as ] Smoketree Apartments ; as it turn out to be to what I felt were of a threat by Former Landlord ; actually, it were of no threat. \n\nBefore I could act on taking civil legal action against Former Landlord ; on or bout XX/XX/XXXX Former Landlord fraudulently submitted me to collection agency of XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for amount of {$3300.00} for reasons I could not gather and could not understand at this time. \n\nH ) Efforts Resolving Fraudulent Debt Collection Action : Prior to taking any civil legal action against Former Landlord ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I moved to gain understanding for resolve from Former Landlord and their representing attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; but instead of Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX co-operating for resolve, I received written notification from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who cited in bold print \" Please Be Advised That This Communication is From A Debt Collector ''. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX [ as a self-representing entity ] I moved to file a claim in small claims court in manner to prove Former Landlord breached lease agreement and to recover for damages incurred to my personal property and personal belongings. \n\nIn midst of filing a claim at small claims judicial I notified collection agency XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX. to gain understanding to a XX/XX/XXXX debt action. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX. returned reply stating balance owed {$0.00} dollars stating account been received in error ; but to my firm belief, account was not received in error, Former Landlord made a retaliatory but a fraudulent move to have fraudulently submitted me to XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX, but I had no solidified proof to prove my suspicion during this time to prove Fraud in its entirety. \n\nI ) Abuse of Legal Justice System to Commit & Carry out Fraud Already discussed under \" Section E '' of Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers filed a wrongful eviction action in small claims judicial courts ; in lieu of attached \" Complaint Eviction Action, if pay close attention, the \" Complaint Eviction Action '' illustrates that ; Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stood to gain profits up to {$8900.00} dollars from their served up negligence and fraudulent misconduct if I had not made dispute against their fraudulent claim that led to being wrongfully evicted. \n\nSo of course? \n\nHereafter I filed and served my XX/XX/XXXX small claims complaint in essence to recover property damage and to prove Former Landlord was the party to have breached the lease ; instead of Former Landlord to have come to a small claims court case resolve?\n\nFormer Landlord hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to intentionally dismiss my small claims court case which came dismissed on or about XX/XX/XXXX ; and just like XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered in their XX/XX/XXXX written communication ; to have cited ... \n\n\" If you pursue legal action against our client, we will take all legal action necessary to recover from you all damages, costs and attorney 's fees incurred with defending XXXX at XXXX [ formally known as ] XXXX XXXX, and so they did, but yet, in manner for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to have gained judgment ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX perjured under oath to maintain their fraudulent scheme and claim to fraudulent collect on a debt by making a false claim whence alleged .... \n\nPlaintiff, without Defendant 's permission or release, surrendered possession of keys and apartment on XX/XX/XXXX. In doing so, Plaintiff willfully and intentionally breached rental agreement to which he was a party. \n\nBy XX/XX/XXXX legal costs and fees incurred of attorney fees at {$4000.00} and costs in amount of {$190.00} as interest accrued at rate of ( 4.25 % ) for losing my small claims court case against Former Landlord.\n\nActions of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appear to have had all legal rights to recover legal fees and costs for representing their client of XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX judgment for legal fees and costs did not follow in accordance with small claims judicial practices ; but rather, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX intentionally moved my small claims court matters to the justice of peace to be dismissed in manner [ as being alleged ] to prevent their Fraud from being exposed, as once again to the mentioning, in that if, I had appeared in court to testify? \n\nAny judge to have resided over my testimony and evidence would have immediately seen Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filed a false allegation against me. \n\nJ ) Pure Fraud by Fraudulent Debt Collecting Action ( s ) : Instead of Former Landlord leaving matters as they may from XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX received account from XXXX at XXXX regarding unit # XXXX in error and account balance at {$0.00} ; Former Landlord submitted me to yet another collection agency of U.S. Collections West, Inc. for amount of {$3400.00}. \n\nAction taken by Former Landlord through their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was nothing more than ongoing retaliatory misconduct accompanied with Pure Fraud. \n\nHereafter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX committed perjury under oath claiming I willfully walked away from my lease agreement obligations ; and that of, Former Landlord to have submitted me to U.S. Collection West , Inc. for amount of {$3400.00} after matters had resolved with XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFormer Landlord gave no other alternative but for me to pursue matters at division of Superior Court of XXXX County for resolve to help determine to whom breached the lease. \n\nK ) Superior Court Civil Legal Action Had to Be Taken : On or about XX/XX/XXXX [ still a self-representing entity ] I filed a Breach of Contract claim with Superior Court Clerk of XXXX County citing contributory negligence that involved Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in manner for judicial courts to determine what party or parties breached lease agreement, violated Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, and for Fraudulent misconduct. \n\nFormer Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to represent against my Superior Court Case ; during Superior Court proceedings, on a number of occasions Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. had ample opportunities to make resolve prior to judge delivering verdict. \n\nMy Superior Court Claim was filed in Superior Courts on or about XX/XX/XXXX and should have reached and/or come concluded [ approximately ] no later than year end of XX/XX/XXXX ; but instead of Former Land and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX resolving all matters through their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX while under jurisdiction of Superior Court. \n\nAccompanied by actions of Superior Courts of XXXX County who failed to uphold Ariz. R. Civ . P. Rule 1 Scope and Purpose that established rules that govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in Superior Court of Arizona ; they should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and parties to secure just, speedy, and in expensive determination of every action and proceedings. \n\nFormer Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to uphold Ariz. R. Civ . P. Rule 1 Scope and Purpose whence intentionally delayed trial by performing all types of \" bad faith '' litigation tactics rather than to have made resolve no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nL ) Additional Fraudulent Discoveries : While XXXX XXXX XXXX performed \" bad faith '' litigation actions during Superior Court proceedings ; a sum of about four ( 4 ) years expired from date dispute initially onset that on or about XX/XX/XXXX while under oath of Superior Courts of XXXX County? \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company delivered under Ariz. R. Civ . P. 26.1 their Disclosure Statement that's of information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX expected to present into trial as exhibits and/or as evidence upon whence a trial date would get set. \n\nInclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was ... \n\n1 ) A copy of a document entitled \" Statement of Unit Condition '' that came as part of the lease agreement ; that this lease agreement, was delivered as a falsified document with my signature being forged. \n2 ) Inclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was the Residential Ledger from XXXX XXXX XXXX with drummed up Fraudulent Charges that totaled {$650.00}. \n3 ) Inclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was the XXXX XXXX XXXX Bill from XXXX at XXXX with drummed up fraudulent charges of {$740.00}. \n4 ) and Inclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was ... \na copy of the Move out Statement with drummed up fraudulent charges of {$3400.00} I'd seen from on or about XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBecause of my discovery to additional drummed up fraudulent charges ; because of my discovery to finding my signature fraudulently had been forged to a falsified document ; and discovering that, my identity had been compromised by my name being forged. \n\nWhile under oath of Superior Courts of XXXX County? \n\nAriz. R. Civ . P. 26 ( g ) provided me the legal right to conduct a \" discovery '' investigation via Personal Consultation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I delivered written personal consultation to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX addressing my discovery concerns but gained no response nor cooperation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nIn manner having to prove to courts during trial proceedings my signature had been forged to the lease agreement contract [ document of ] Statement Unit Condition. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I hired a handwriting analysis expert to examine the document in question with my forged signature ; results returned, my signature indeed had been forged thus confirming I had not authored the document that came into question thus confirming someone stole my identity by forging my signature. \n\nM ) Reservation Agreement for Holding Former Rental Unit # XXXX : Prior to Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX committing prohibited retaliatory misconduct that led up to being wrongfully evicted ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I visited XXXX at XXXX XXXX  formerly known as XXXX XXXX XXXX ; it was verbally addressed if interested to renting an apartment I must pay {$50.00} dollars security to hold or reserve a unit. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I paid amount {$50.00} dollars as security deposit to secure a rental unit for leasing. \n\nIt's standard procedure in manner if there is an occurred error needed to be remedied, standard error correcting procedure is to simply draw a single line through error and make proper correction, and bring to attention of person who made and/or created error if not present ; but if present, error correcting should be done while person is presently available. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I visited Management office of Former Landlord to follow up regarding leasing a unit ; on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, I was introduced to the Reservation Agreement Certificate, the Reservation Agreement Certificate substantiates XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reserved rental unit # XXXX for my leasing pleasures but immediately noted upon being addressed about the lease agreement, the leasing term was incorrect. \n\nFormer Landlord 's Management reserved rental unit # XXXX for a 12 month term ; but yet, I never addressed Former Landlord 's Management I desired a 12 month lease ; I only desired a 6 month lease agreement term ; Former Landlord 's Management who bore initials \" SB '' properly drew a single line through error and made proper changes to meet my desired rental-leasing agreement pleasures of a 6 month term. \n\nOn this day of XX/XX/XXXX while being addressed by Former Landlord 's Management regarding move-in costs of pro-rated rent ; it was addressed, amount owed was {$190.00} ; but yet, never a discussion about a Non-refundable Administrative fee of {$120.00} dollars needed to be paid. \n\nN ) Former Landlord & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Committed Theft By Fraud of {$50.00} Dollars : When delivered money order of {$50.00} dollars on XX/XX/XXXX that represented reserving rental unit for leasing ; while my presence was known, Former Landlord failed to make any kind of error correction to my submitted payment of {$50.00} dollars as a security deposit to hold a rental unit ; here fore, on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, Former Landlord accepted payment as a security deposit for holding a rental unit. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX when visited Management office of Former Landlord to follow up regarding a leased unit being on hold ; on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, while my presence was known, Former Landlord failed to make any kind of error correction to my submitted payment of {$50.00} dollars as a security deposit ; here fore, on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, Former Landlord accepted payment as a security deposit for holding a rental unit. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX when visited office of Former Landlord to sign lease agreement ; on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, while my presence was known during lease agreement signing, Former Landlord failed to make any kind of error correction to my submitted payment of {$50.00} dollars as a security deposit ; here fore, on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, Former Landlord accepted payment as a security deposit as to have held a rental unit for leasing that took effect on XX/XX/XXXX, which means? \n\nIf payment of {$50.00} dollars had other means of use other than for \" Security Deposit '' to reserve a unit for leasing ; Former Landlord was responsible to have made proper error correction while my presence was known and available to him on XX/XX/XXXX, but Former Landlord failed to bring any error correcting needs to my attention. \n\nBecause Former Landlord accepted payment of {$50.00} dollars in manner to hold an apartment unit to be leased as leasing terms would commence on XX/XX/XXXX ; holding and reserving an apartment unit for lease can be construed as a \" Security Deposit '' where such term of \" Security Deposit '' applies within the Rental Agreement.\n\nAccording to Rental Agreement having to pay a Security Deposit to hold, reserve, or secure a rental unit for lease was clearly termed as N/A ; so mere fact, is that, Former Landlord fraudulently took my {$50.00} dollars without applying it for it's intended delivered purpose, then failed to return my {$50.00} dollars payment, is nothing but FRAUD by keeping and maintaining profits gained by negligence, but FRAUD did not conclude at this juncture. \n\nO ) Fraudulent Rental Agreement : A Non-refundable Administrative fee of {$120.00} dollars appears to Rental Agreement but appears in manner as a need for separate payment that would strictly define a Non-Refundable Administrative fee for {$120.00} dollars as same would apply for expenditure of pro-rated rent being of a separate payment for {$110.00} in manner pro-rated rent is strictly defined within the rental agreement as payment for pro-rated rent. \n\nThe Reservation Agreement Certificate states move-in costs at {$240.00} that was never signed by me ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I paid move-in costs of {$50.00} dollars as security so a rental could be reserved on hold for leasing ; then on or about XX/XX/XXXX I paid amount of {$190.00} for move-in costs as pro-rated rent which summed to be {$240.00} for a total move-in to commence on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAccording to Rental Agreement a Non-Refundable Fee amounts to {$120.00} dollars plus {$2.00} for tax that totals {$120.00} for a Non-Refundable Administrative fee. \n\nOn page 2 of 24 of Rental Agreement sub-topic of Administrative Fee states Owner hereby acknowledges receipt from Resident ( s ) of a non-refundable Administrative fee in amount of {$120.00} which shall immediately be used by Owner to help defray the administrative costs associated with preparing the lease paperwork ; as stated prior, this action of Non Refundable Administrative Fee deserved it's own separate payment for strictly being defined as payment for Non Refundable Administrative Fees but I never directly paid amount of {$120.00} for Administrative Fees. \n\nPayment given was {$50.00} dollars for reserving a unit and {$190.00} for pro-rated rent ; but yet, according to Rental Agreement, pro-rated rent in amount of {$110.00} was due on XX/XX/XXXX to cover period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, but yet? \n\nFormer Landlord accepted payment of {$190.00} on or about XX/XX/XXXX ; which actually, and by Rental Agreement Terms is five ( 5 ) days prior to XX/XX/XXXX ; so facts are, pro-rated rent of {$110.00} dollars was due on XX/XX/XXXX which is same date lease agreement were to take and effect and actually took but fraud did not conclude at this juncture ... spacing is limited.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-10-21T15:46:20.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"85224","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3052291","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. Collections West, Inc.","date_received":"2018-10-21T14:34:08.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On or XX/XX/XXXX I gave spoils to Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's fraudulent act of <em>making</em> <em>false</em> allegation in small claims courts of justice whence I filed my court answer reply to being wrongfully evicted, as you would think?"]},"sort":[6.407461,"3052291"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17897112","_score":6.2470593,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Bilt Rewards for their refusal to compensate me for damages resulting from their third-party vendor 's ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) data breach. Bilt chose XXXX as its banking partner, shared my personal data with XXXX, and when XXXX suffered a massive breach affecting XXXX XXXX people, Bilt refused to take responsibility. I have suffered {$3300.00} in documented damages due to Bilt 's failures. \n\nWHAT HAPPENED The Data Breach In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Bilt 's banking services provider, suffered a ransomware attack by the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The breach compromised my : Social Security number Bank account information Full name and date of birth Contact information Financial transaction records I am a Bilt customer. I have no direct relationship with XXXX. Bilt chose to use XXXX as its backend banking infrastructure and shared my data with it without my knowledge or explicit consent. \nTimeline of Failures XX/XX/XXXX : Breach occurs at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Bilt sends me an email stating : My information \" may have '' been compromised There was \" no definitive proof '' of impact This was \" out of an abundance of caution. '' I should take protective measures at my own expense Critically, Bilt OMITTED : That XXXX  would contact me directly with remediation offers That free credit monitoring would be available That a class action settlement would provide up to {$3000.00} in compensation That I should watch for communications from XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX : According to Bilt ( disclosed XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX  allegedly began sending direct notifications offering 24 months of FREE credit monitoring through XXXX. \nI NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION FROM XXXX. Not by mail, email, phone, or any other method. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX  class action settlement notice period. The settlement offered : Up to {$3000.00} for documented losses OR {$20.00} flat payment PLUS one year of credit monitoring I NEVER RECEIVED ANY SETTLEMENT NOTICE. Not by mail, email, or any method. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Settlement claim deadline passes without my knowledge. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I contact Bilt requesting reimbursement for credit monitoring costs ( {$350.00} ). \nXXXX XXXX XXXX : Bilt repeatedly tells me to \" contact XXXX  directly '' despite : I am a Bilt customer, not an XXXX  customer I have no relationship with XXXX  Bilt chose XXXX  and shared my data with them XX/XX/XXXX : Bilt finally discloses ( 18 MONTHS LATE ) that : XXXX  offered 24 months of free credit monitoring The enrollment period has expired A settlement existed with an XX/XX/XXXX deadline I missed everything due to notification failure XX/XX/XXXX : Bilt Legal sends formal rejection stating : \" Bilt is not liable for the incident at XXXX. '' \" There is no legal basis for your request. '' \" Contact XXXX directly. '' \" We consider this matter closed. '' WHY THIS VIOLATES CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 1. UNFAIR PRACTICES Under 12 U.S.C. 5531, the CFPB prohibits unfair practices. Bilt 's conduct is unjust because : A. Inadequate Vendor Oversight Bilt failed to : Properly vet XXXXXXXX XXXX cybersecurity before selecting them as a vendor Monitor XXXX XXXX ongoing security compliance Ensure XXXX can properly notify affected customers Verify that customers received remediation offers Take corrective action when notification systems fail Bilt admits it has \" no visibility '' into XXXXXXXX XXXX notification processesthis confession reveals inadequate vendor oversight. \nB. Notification Failure Bilt 's XX/XX/XXXX, notification was inadequate because it : Downplayed severity ( \" no definitive proof, '' \" abundance of caution '' ) Omitted critical information about free remediation Omitted information about the settlement Failed to direct customers to watch for XXXX  communications Misled customers into believing they should pay for protection themselves C. 18-Month Delay in Disclosure Bilt waited 18 months to inform me that free remediation had been available. By then : Free monitoring enrollment had expired The settlement claim deadline had passed ( by 38 days ) I had lost all opportunity for the XXXX XXXXXXXX in benefits I was entitled to This delay was not inadvertentI contacted Bilt in XX/XX/XXXX, specifically asking about reimbursement, and they still deflected me to XXXX  rather than immediately disclosing the expired remediation. \nD. Deflection Creating Liability Gap Bilt 's position creates an unfair liability gap : Bilt says, \" Contact XXXX, they're responsible. '' XXXX would say : \" Contact Bilt, they're our customer. '' Consumer gets trapped in the middle with no remediation This is precisely the scenario consumer protection law is designed to prevent.\n\n2. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES Bilt engaged in materially misleading conduct : A. Misleading Breach Notification A reasonable consumer reading Bilt 's XX/XX/XXXX notification would conclude : They probably weren't affected ( \" no definitive proof '' ) No free remediation would be available They should take protective measures at their own cost This is materially misleading because free remediation WAS availableBilt didn't tell customers about it.\n\nB. False Impression of No Liability Bilt 's repeated statements that they're \" not liable '' and that customers should \" contact XXXX directly '' create a false impression that Bilt bears no responsibility for vendor failures.\n\nThis contradicts established legal precedent where customer-facing companies are held liable for vendor breaches : XXXX  : {$18.00} XXXX settlement ( HVAC vendor breach ) XXXX  XXXX : {$190.00} XXXX settlement ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX  : {$350.00} XXXX settlement ( vendor vulnerability breaches ) XXXX XXXX : {$19.00} XXXX settlement ( vendor credential breach ) XXXX  : {$52.00} XXXX settlement ( subsidiary vendor breach ) XXXX  : {$380.00} XXXX settlement ( third-party software vulnerability ) C. Premature \" Matter Closed '' Declaration Bilt declared \" we consider this matter closed '' despite : Unresolved consumer harm ( {$3300.00} in damages ) Available administrative remedies ( this complaint ) Available judicial remedies No agreement from me to close the matter This creates a false impression that the\n\nconsumer has no recourse. 3. INADEQUATE DATA SECURITY Under the CFPB 's authority over data security practices, Bilt failed to : Maintain adequate vendor management procedures\nEnsure vendors have appropriate cybersecurity safeguards Protect customer data shared with vendors Respond appropriately when a vendor breach occurs The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Safeguards Rule, 16 C.F.R. 314.4 ( d ), requires financial institutions to : \" Oversee service providers, by : ( 1 ) Taking reasonable steps to select and retain service providers that are capable of maintaining appropriate safeguards for customer information ; and ( 2 ) Requiring your service providers by contract to implement and maintain such safeguards. '' Bilt violated these requirements by : Selecting XXXX  ( which suffered an 18-million-person breach ) Failing to monitor XXXX XXXX  security adequately Having \" no visibility '' into critical vendor processes Failing to ensure proper breach notification THE FINANCIAL HARM I SUFFERED Total Damages : {$3300.00} Breakdown : 1. Lost Settlement Opportunity : {$3000.00} The XXXX class action settlement ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) allowed claims up to {$3000.00} for documented losses. \nI would have claimed the maximum based on : Credit monitoring costs : XXXX XXXX 2 years = {$700.00} Time spent addressing breach : 20+ hours XXXX XXXXXXXX = XXXX XXXX  Identity theft protection services : XXXX XXXXXXXX Administrative costs for protective measures Lost productivity My documented losses easily exceeded {$3000.00}, making me eligible for the maximum settlement amount.\n\nBut for the notification failure, I would have filed a timely claim and received this compensation.\n\n2. Credit Monitoring Costs : {$350.00} Because I never received the 24 months of free credit monitoring XXXX offered, I must purchase services independently at XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nThis includes : Three-bureau credit monitoring Real-time fraud alerts Identity theft insurance ( XXXX XXXX coverage ) Dark web monitoring Credit score tracking Fraud resolution assistance This is a necessary expense because : My Social Security number was compromised My bank account information was exposed I face a permanent elevated risk of identity theft Industry standard is 1-2 years of monitoring post-breach 3. Ongoing Future Damages Beyond the {$3300.00} I'm claiming now : XXXX XXXXXXXX for continued monitoring ( indefinite ) Hundreds of hours over lifetime monitoring accounts Permanent privacy loss ( SSN can not be changed ) Lifetime elevated identity theft risk Psychological costs and stress I am limiting this complaint to concrete, immediately quantifiable damages ( {$3300.00} ) to facilitate a resolution. \n\nWHAT I'VE DONE TO RESOLVE THIS Timeline of My Attempts : XX/XX/XXXX : Sent a formal email to Bilt requesting {$350.00} reimbursement for credit monitoring. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Bilt customer service ( XXXX ) responds : \" We recommend reaching out to the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX team directly. '' XX/XX/XXXX : I respond, explaining I am a Bilt customer, not an XXXX  customer, and that Bilt should take responsibility for vendor failures. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Bilt customer service responds, stating that XXXX offered free monitoring and that I should have received a notification. This is the FIRST TIME I learned remediation existed18 months after it was available. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I have not received any notification from XXXX and would appreciate an escalation request. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Bilt Legal sends a formal rejection stating : \" Bilt is not liable for the incident at XXXX. '' \" No legal basis for your request. '' \" Contact XXXX directly. '' \" We consider this matter closed. '' XX/XX/XXXX : I send a comprehensive legal response citing precedent cases and offering a settlement of {$3300.00} by XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( same day ) : Filing this CFPB complaint because Bilt refuses to take responsibility.\n\nWHY BILT 'S POSITION IS WRONG \" We're Not Liable for Our Vendor '' This argument has been rejected in every major data breach case : XXXX  tried to blame HVAC vendor Held liable, paid XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX tried to blame XXXX  Held liable, paid XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX regulatory penalties XXXX tried to blame vendors Held liable, paid XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX tried to blame vendor credentials Held liable, paid XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX tried to blame subsidiary vendors Held liable, paid XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  tried to blame third-party software Held liable, paid XXXX XXXXXXXX Total : Over {$1.00} XXXX in settlements proving customer-facing companies are liable for vendor breaches. \n\" Contact XXXX  Directly '' This is impractical and unfair because : I have no relationship with XXXX  All remediation deadlines have already expired Bilt provided my contact information to XXXX  If the information was wrong, Bilt is responsible Creates an endless deflection loop between companies \" No Visibility Into Vendor Processes '' This admission proves negligence, not a defense : Under GLBA and industry standards, companies must have visibility into vendor processes that affect customer data. Bilt 's admission that they have \" no visibility '' into whether customers received notifications proves inadequate vendor oversight.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-09T21:08:13.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"085XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17897112","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bilt Technologies, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-09T21:02:52.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Privacy issues"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Premature \" Matter Closed '' Declaration Bilt declared \" we consider this matter closed '' despite : Unresolved consumer harm ( {$3300.00} in damages ) Available administrative remedies ( this complaint ) Available judicial remedies No agreement from me to <em>close</em> the matter This creates a <em>false</em> impression that the\n\nconsumer has no recourse. 3."]},"sort":[6.2470593,"17897112"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3822641","_score":6.1424227,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"PLEASE REFER TO THE FULL DETAILS WRITTEN WITHIN 1-65 PAGES PDF INCLUDED THIS WILL BETTER EXPLAIN WITH FULL LENGTH DETAIL. \nHi my names XXXX XXXX and I wanted to first thank you for your time, consideration, and care over my list of valid complaints and regulatory/law violations that I now have unrefutable proof to support my claims in and of their entirety. I also would like to apologize for any ranting ahead of time seeing as how I am still trailing a severely excrutiating amount of frustration, disgust, and disgruntlement over the way I have been mistreated and uncared for by Carvana, XXXX in house lender with carvana, and their warantee company XXXX XXXX. So much so that it is absolutely disappointing/disgusting at best, and highly unethical, illegal, and potentially even criminal at worst given my valid plethora of proof and takeaways thru my experience with doing business with Carvana, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and its representatives. My complaints surround mainly Carvana LLC, but also its in house lender XXXX, and its affiliate XXXX XXXX handling their XXXX XXXX, and the many lending laws companys like Carvana LLC and its in house lender are bound to follow and ensure proper escallation guidelines are in place and exhausted to properly document, resolve, and/or to prevent overt impacts being brought onto their clients. These Laws and regulations violations I am claiming Carvana clearly, intentionally, and severely violated without a doubt being UDAAP Unfair Deceptive Acts and Practices, Truth in Lending laws/regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Act and Dodd-Frank Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act ECOA, and AZ Lemon Laws. To start I will explain from the beginning to paint the best picture in which i have supplied all dates within my communications, pictures, contracts, original sales page, 150 pt inspection list, car fax, and the many more files included in my large pdf compiled. I also have the recording of the over the phone conversation XXXX   had with me clearly stating the negative input of the XXXX  mechanic given the vehicles current state and expected future, highly expensive, major unaddressed complications to expect thereof especially with the type of problems incurred now occurring so early in the vehicles life at this time per XXXX XXXX mechanic inspection. Repairs so far known as immediately needed are a new radiator fan and new AC Compressor for clarity. XXXX  mechanics also agree that this vehicle is and was sold to me as one heck of a Lemon for lack of better phrasing per the mechanics way of putting it into terms. Non the less I will explain to the fullest and in its entirety regarding the situation and the nature of the specific violations they have committed within carvana LLC, XXXX, and in connnection XXXX XXXX negligenty and intentionally without a care of the harm and/or hazards brought and done onto me, my family ( wife and daughter XXXX years old ) and onto others alike with potentially lower than perfect credit many of whom share similar experiences as my own per online reviews and social media posts discovered. Whereas I am not in a position to fight the complaints of others, but I'm led to believe out of the actions and carelessness willfully taken by and exhausted by Carvana, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and their employees in additon to the experiences Ive had and documentation thereof to support such complaints that Carvana, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX may be conspiring to commit CONSUMER FRAUD on a grand scale to do the same if not similar acts to impact the masses of less than perfect credit customers and in doing so leaving an overbearing burden on their clients and other local businesses sharing similar market interests. Mind you I am now outside of the 7 day return period and even with a slight 2 day extension granted as a result of the vehicles pre existing mechanical issues which took me to XXXX  XXXX XXXX and my vehicle is still in the shop without the greenlight from XXXX XXXX XXXX to approve the work to be started. Now the vehicle has been in the shop for a severly unreasonable amount of time since monday XXXX after sitting in the parking lot unmoved all weekend at my apartments since pickup Saturday XXXX and I only got to test drive it home approx 15 miles only to discover the overheating issue while A/C is running which is beyond the engine noise issue only acknowledged as an issue by me and carvana rep at time of pickup leading to the ASR Report filing by the agent of carvana to enable the fixes that havent been approved causing me to lapse on my return period. All the while they had plenty of time and knowlege of the work to be done by XXXX  mechanic inspection but have yet granted the approval to start the actual fix. With this just being the tip of the iceberg please allow me to fully explain so you take away the best picture as to how all this truly came to be and you will see by the end that invevitably an investigation into their lending practices and regulatory obedience is absolutely neccessary to uncover how large the previously mentioned conspiracy to commit CONSUMER FRAUD on a grand scale is and has been within Carvana, XXXX, and their associated Warantee Company XXXX XXXX as I suspect given how everything happened so far. Sadly this is my first and my worst certified used car purchase experience whereas I have had better luck with vehicles purchased in my younger years thru private parties with over XXXX and they even lasted longer than the XXXX  of a Lemon they falsely advertised and sold me the private party vehicles previously noted survived longer and with less work if any ever needed beyond oil changes and similar common maintenance. This brings me to my next point which the XXXX XXXX mechanics feel is all i should have to worry about is common maintenance oil change brake changes etc even with this XXXX XXXX  age and mileage. Knowing my claims and knowing very well the Laws described as a banker whom previously originated loans for majority of my banking career myself and having to exhaust measures to comply and if needed escalate and document day over day in my own job I refuse to be played as a fool and taken advantage of by Carvana, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX warrantee, and am now first trying to gain a FULL resolve to the fullest extend permitted by the presiding laws, regulations and penalties thereof as described. This including the tier 3 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS and the many others alike previously noted and claimed as violated by Carvana, XXXX, and its affiliated XXXX XXXX warrantee. My goal is to reach a fully encompassed and appropriate resolution with filing this complaint and to the extent that I see and know as allowable by law as it is clearly written. Otherwise should this complaint not prevail as expected, as easy it is to prove, and should Carvana and the other affiliates not want to take ownership of their, especially CARVANA LLC, severe violations and unethical nature of the violations therof then I will be left no choice other than to pursue my claims including additional PUNITIVE DAMAGES after consulting my attorney if needed therof to take action in a formal civil litigation lawsuit where a Judge will mandate Carvana LLC and any other  associated affiliates to be investigated, placed under severe regulatory overwatch should they be allowed to operate further, and penalized both civil and federally thus investigated to the fullest extent of their violations and the penalties thereof as this case is pretty black and white in its entirety and my documented proof will justify such at any time just as I am proving to you within the CFPB. Especially now that I may be facing soon a loss of job due to having now been sold severely unreliable transportation that is overly prone to severe breakdowns soon per the XXXX  mechanics inspection and experience. Which to better explain once my job determines working from home is no longer needed/available and a return to the office is mandatory me and my family will be left with the severe overt impact this Carvana LLc Company has caused on top of the overt impacts already suffered on account of their length of negligence and lack of care towards their customers and towards the laws that govern their sale activities and abilities thereof. I will explain from the beginning. Me and my family had been involved in a Hit and Run accident that left me my previous vehicle at a total loss and in a deficit still owing on the other vehicle. So moving forward I chose to give Carvana a chance approx XXXX and applied online to see what I may be approved for to obtain another vehicle. Carvana had at that time approved me for financing at a high interest  rate with a {$2900.00} down payment and no vehicle trade in. I took my time to research the available vehicles and was originally looking into something similar to my XXXX XXXX XXXX but later me and my family chose to go with a bigger vehicle we felt safer in due to the nature of the damage to the XXXX  on such a low speed impact which upon continuing to search we found this unique looking XXXX different than the rest. The XXXX was within my price range yielding a {$2900.00} down payment requirement even with additional warrantee coverage and gap insurance. Also compared to many other vehicles listed the XXXX XXXX XXXX had a clean XXXX  including regular in shop oil changes etc as listed and the XXXX  had a supposed clean 150 pt inspection listed as done on XXXX stating the vehicle was fully operational without issue this including the areas around where the issues I have experienced since are occurring. Therefore at that time we determined as a family it would be best to go with the XXXX  and despite the year and mileage on account of the history of the jeeps XXXX and 150pt inspection records and care for thereof that made us feel we were making a purchase of a quality fully functional vehicle as Carvana continued to what we now know to be falsly promoted via email and on their site. Within the time of shopping from XXXX thru XXXX we were making last minute choice changes only to revert back to the XXXX as our final choice by XXXX thru XXXX me and my family were making our final choice around going forward with the XXXX  per our final decision making to choose a larger vehicle that made me and my family feel safer. Included are the previous and final version of the signed contract up till day of pickup. During this time I almost lost my ability to purchase the XXXX making changes to my vehicle of choice and luckily it became unreserved and was able to be reverted back to the XXXX shortly after and reserved as my selected vehicle under my profile. Whereas Carvana was ready to sell to another party and would of just as easily bestowed the same issues onto someone else without a doubt and without any care as my experience has proven from beginning to end. Without any clear care for Federal and State Laws/Regulations in addition as you will see with my explanation and proof thereof. This after all my experiences leads me to firmly beleive the acts and violations committed very well may be being commited by Carvana, XXXX, and their Warantee Company XXXX XXXX intentionally against me, my family, and other less than perfect credit customers alike on a grand scale leaving them stuck with broken lemon vehicles that havent been cared for as they advertise prior to listing thus leading to the inevidable sale of these vehicles such as the Lemon \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' sold to me and my family carelessly. Moving on with my explanation and fine points. Once I had everything in line from funds verification, document verification, contract signed, and insurance swapped over from my previous vehicle on friday by approx XXXX to XXXX I wake up saturday XXXX at XXXX XXXX in the morning to find out that Carvana unexpectedly has emailed me to reschedule my pickup time due to a newly discovered COSMETIC concern and that they quote on quote per their email say in writing '' CARVANA WANTS TO PROVIDE ME THE VEHICLE AS IT WAS ADVERTISED ''. This told me nothing to the true extend of the reasoning behind the delay. Upon calling Carvana to find more information I was advised by their phone representative that it appears that the cosmetic concern is actually a result of a Carvana employee whom hit the XXXX XXXX Bumper with a vehicle while driving to move another vehicle. I was bitterly furious and livid to find this out as to how this could of carelessly happened and having to call myself to find the truth as to what happened rather than be told upfront and truthfully. Not to mention also having to of called myself to attempt to escalate the issue and find out the truth rather than simply being told the truth via email, or even called to be informed of the occurrence, how they will be fixing it, and my rescheduling options. I then sent further emails requesting this issue be escalated, for a supervisor to contact me, and for pictures to be sent to show the extent of the damage their employee had done. I also emailed them around XXXX XXXX requesting further accommodations due to the nature of the issue and inconvenience which was ignored. One request was to have the vehicle delivered waiving the charge of {$500.00} since I had to make alternative arrangements that may have further impacted my jobs in addition to the time I already had to take off unpaid to resolve these issues. Out of my requests NONE of which were ever done and after about a week of waiting and following up with Carvana to find out if info and formal pictures of the bumper issue will be sent and if someone can better explain to me how this could of happened so carelessly. I kept in communication to no avail for days on in with the understanding that this bumper replacement would of taken till XX/XX/XXXX for the part to be delivered for replacement. Over the next few days I continue to call taking unreasonable amounts of impactful time off work to find out if they have any update only to eventually find out all they are willing to do is paint the bumper rather than replace it. This being after days of waiting to find any info out. Still no pictures or other supporting documentation was provided as requested in regards to the damage done prior to pickup. Also this overall determination took a severly unreasonable amount of time to come to conclusion on to be able to move forward with the sale. Not to mention the obvious devaluation of the collateral vehicle due to the incident. Mind you still to this day they have never updated their site sale page as listed to indicate the additional accident and repair nor did they update the advertised mileage as required instead they kept the originally stated mileage which was XXXX as shown in the pictures of original advertisement. On Wed XXXX XXXX XXXX from Carvana phone number XXXX I was called and left a Voice Message by a representative within Carvana LLC Named XXXX. This agent XXXX I spoke to over the phone and actually followed up as promised, only once, to advised me saying the earliest time Carvana can have the car ready for pickup is Friday XXXX at XXXX which inevitabely had to be rescheduled online for the following saturday XXXX to avoid further impacts to my job and paid time worked vs unpaid time taken off to address and handle issues that Carvana has caused and provided little to no effort to resolve or escallate appropriately. Upon me having discovered the issue of the Carvana LLC Employee hitting the XXXX and time originally quoted to fix the bumper thru replacement but was later only painted supposedly and without supporting documentation provided to me as requested to affirm the damage and fix. I luckily avoided further negative financial impact unto me and my family in having to swap the vehicle under my insurance back to my older vehicle listed up until the XXXX was further ready for pickup proceeding the fix. This action having to be taken almost caused me to have a gap in covereage for my auto insurance and would of cost me a plethora more financially month over month year over year in premiums had the agents not been able to aviod the gap in coverage. Luckily this was avoided and situated to reprocess the same quote when the time was right later in the month of XX/XX/XXXX. Moving forward once XXXX came around and vehicle was ready for pickup I once again had to take yet another expensive XXXX ride to their XXXX Location \" Vehicle Vending Machine '' address of which is listed in the many pictures on my pdf. Upon arrival I waited until my appointment time approx XXXX and the agent gave me the paperwork in the folder shown in my pdf  file compilation. She explained the vehicle still needs to be taken into emissions to pass within a few days and to use the voucher to avoid the cost after the drive cycle is complete after so many miles driven. To me this is something that should of been done just like a formal ACCURATE inspection well before my pickup especially with all the time they had the vehicle in surplus of my original pickup date and additionally the extra driving of XXXX approx. miles a Carvana Employee drove it beyond the advertised listing mileage which should of been a complete drive cycle enabling Carvana LLC to  ensure it will even pass emissions and obtaining the certification for such and fixing any issues prior to selling or even listing for sale. Once the paperwork was provided in person as shown in the pdf pictures ( return paper and car fax and few other documents ) and I initiated the coin into the vending machine the rep had to drive the vehicle around front to me for showing since their vending machine wasnt fully operational due to faulty mechanical problems as explained by XXXX the ON SITE AGENT at the location assisting had explained. Non the less when the vehicle was driven around for my viewing it immediately was further acknowledged by XXXX and initially acknowledged by Myself to be having clearly audible severe engine noises from an unknown location within the engine. At that time the vehicle was parked and idling I further inspected the XXXX XXXX both while on and off and at that time the Agent explained since this is a problem that was pre-existent prior to sale and pickup they will file a ASR Case to have Carvana LLC fix the issues in their  entirety and this allows to see if it corrects itself since she claimed it just had an oil change, or she says I can return the vehicle and get another. Which is insult to injury at this point as I am still piecing all the puzzle peices together boggled as to how this all could of been overlooked and become a problem for me so carelessly under such a companies guidance and managent who should be providing measures to prevent this from ever happening within reason. Even then after seeing the bumper I didnt even notice if they had actually done anything to the bumper as it didnt look like it had been painted as claimed and the agent didnt know any of the details about the damage location or repair either aside from it supposedly being addressed. I chose to allow them the opportunity to fix the issues evident as existing prior to the official sale. This taking place once inspected and root of issue discovered and to enable them the opportunity to correct the issues and have the vehicle to be sold as it was advertised to me and my family. Also just as I mentioned before as to how Carvana assured me in writing via email that their goal was to provide me the vehicle AS ADVERTISED when they had to fix the bumper issue. I allowed her to file the case taking their advise with the understanding Carvana LLC was to fix the issue as a result of this issue existing prior to pickup as XXXX confirmed. I then basically test drove the vehicle only to find out soon after within 15 miles of test driving the vehicle home that the vehicle is overheating and made it to 3/4 of the way to H on the Temprature gauge of the vehicle and luckily was able to cut the a/c and make it home without incurring a severe engine failure and without it making it all the way to H thankfully preventing a on the spot full engine overheat and failure. As you see noted via email to Carvana LLC at the XXXX addressing the newfound overheating issue in addition to the pre existing issue of loud engine noise clunking prior to pickup I sent to Carvana via email on XXXX at XXXX explaining in detail the overall issues in addition to the overheating experienced and left unaddressed for weeks prior to pickup and thru many more shop visits for the additional repairs. I further sent an email on XXXX at XXXX to XXXX to have noted and affirm I only drove 15 miles approximately home whereas the vehicle was provided to me with approx XXXX miles more than the advertised mileage and even so the listed mileage on the Final and only Signed contract Signed by me and Carvana LLC financed thru XXXX that I have included from XXXX stating the mileage of XXXX not XXXX with the exception of the approx 15 miles I drove home and left the vehicle parked to avoid engine failure and other issues alike with the vehicle. I included the picture of the odometer I took on XXXX as the XXXX   was disabled and parked until the direction was given on XXXX XXXX from Carvana LLC and XXXX XXXX via email on how and where to take the XXXX to start having it inspected to be fixed. I included screen shots of the video camera videos I have of the vehicle parked unmoved over the weekend leading to the towing of the vehicle on monday XXXX to the XXXX Shop located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX AZ XXXX Phone number XXXX at the expense of myself and my insurance company. Which is just one additional overt negative financial impact brought onto me and my family and now my insurance company XXXX for a problem they should of had clearly acknowledged and fixed prior to even listing for sale beyond their 150 pt supposed inspection. On monday XXXX I also took it upon myself to exhaust my freedom of speach and freedom of press leading to the exhaustion of my freedom of expression and made posts on XXXX  to highlight the nature of my experiece so far and embelish that I still had faith in a formal resolve. The online agent on XXXX  requested direct message via DM and I did as you see screen shotted only to eventually not get anywhere when they over promised to keep in touch with their teams to escallate this issue and see it thru. This conversation was further noted over the next week up until i lost faith in their escallation efforts, if any. Which it will be evident as to why by the time I fully explained my whole story. I further included pictures showing the time and date of the video screen shots showing the vehicle no longer in my parking lot after being towed to XXXX on Monday XXXX at approx XXXX that afternoon. I then was in clear communication with XXXX awaiting for tuesday XXXX just for the inspector to be present on duty to inspect the vehicle and once I was able to get affirmation as to the problems I was repeatedly told XXXX mechanics they would contact XXXX XXXX to explain the needed fixes and from that point on I kept calling day over day only to find out that they were still waiting for the GreenLight as they call it to even start the work once fully approved. I called XXXX that week before and was advised simply they would make sure it all gets across to XXXX as needed which at this time now as I write this I see that as clear over promise of a resolution to my escallated situation. Come around Wed. XXXX I was told by the mechanics it seems all is well and by thursday XXXX I called and was told by the other mechanic whom was telling me he wasnt sure what i was told and that he is still waiting on the green light now that they so far have communicated everything to XXXX XXXX. By this time the mechanic at XXXX told me \" so far thats all the problems, so far, that they are able to determine but man they sold you one heck of a Lemon '' which I have recorded video-audio of the XXXX mechanics stated to me that these problems shouldnt be occuring this early in the vehicles life and its a clear red flag for bigger and worse problems soon down the line and that the fix now would of been {$1400.00} out of my pocket if the Warantee was not covering it and to pretty much expect more major problems down the line which basically leads me to conclude in Carvana LLC selling this vehicle with these obvious unadvertised unaddressed and heavily neglected issues clearly there actions violated AZ Lemon Laws, Truth in Lending, Consumer Financial Protection Act, ECOA Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and have successfully crucified me and my family financially now and in the future now that I can firmly expect to experience bigger issues with no telling whether XXXX XXXX will cover all the needed repair costs, but the base principle beyond that point is this vehicle that obviously real mechanics can easily identify and acknowledge major problems with should of been fixed prior to listing for sale and or sold as a fully operational vehicle as it was advertised to be. Its also apparent that Carvana LLC never fully inspected this vehicle as advertised to of been XXXX nor cared to acknowledge the issues that were clearly existent to even non mechanics let alone the XXXX XXXX mechanics well before this vehicle was listed for sale. As mentioned before and now with the input of the XXXX XXXX mechanics taken into account its evident that I may be soon faced with loosing my jobs in the near future as result of their overt violations and actions, negligent care of, and lack of policy escallation guidelines and appropriate remedies thereof leaving me without reliable transportation which Carvana LLC heavily and falsly promotes with thier overpromised advertising of the HIGH quality of their products/vehicles and inspection standards. This is an overt impact I may incur soon enough resulting from expected major  breakdowns as clearly anticipated by XXXX mechanics for this very XXXX and the nature of the problems this early in life and their length of experience to back up such claims. Now in attempting to escalate this issue within Carvana LLC I only was able to obtain apology after apology and a slight 2 day extension to my return period whereas they refused to get me in touch with a manager repeatedly claiming to be senior representatives and they have the authority of managers when clearly they lacked the competency of such authority as shown in their lack of efforts in escalating my situation as needed. This taking place among my many communications via email, Social Media, and Call ins to support line representatives within Carvana LLC and additionally my call into XXXX XXXX encompassing the over promises of a full expeditious resolve of a problem that should of first and foremost never been a problem prior to advertising with intent to sale a product to the general public of consumers let alone the finalization of a sale with expressed knowledge of such issues. This substantiates itself seeing as how still to this very day I am left without a operable vehicle that is still in the shop without even having the work started after the shop having the vehicle for 7 days and with XXXX XXXX having plenty of room and personel to process the approval to give the XXXX shops mechanics the green light to start the work. Furthermore I later in the week on XXXX recieve a call from Carvana LLC Agents and on the same day at XXXX I recieve an email stating my 7 day return period is on its 6th day and almost expired. This poses a great deal of conflict, concern, and confusion as a result of how the online portal displays provided the two day extension timeline I thought which ended on XXXX. I then call back to carvana llc to see if they were possibly calling with an update to my apparently not escalated situation/complaint/issue only to find this out as to why they called to explain that my last day of my return period is here and then I further expressed my concern over the presiding issues and again only received apology after apology and further insult to injury saying that I can return the vehicle still for another. I then called XXXX XXXX back and followed up only to find nothing has again been updated or approved and I explained to them that im almost outside my grace period and was told they will follow up with XXXX XXXX yet again. Mind you this is a vehicle i truly never had a chance to drive beyond the test drive let alone the fact that its been sitting unfixed in the XXXX  shop for days waiting for the greenlight that since has still never been given. Now here we are on XX/XX/XXXX both XXXX Shop and XXXX XXXX have been closed since closing on Saturday XXXX and I have no follow up from anyone and still my vehicle has not recieved the formal approval as requested by XXXX days ago to start the repairs and my original return period and my 2 day extension has officially expired as shown in the screen shots and I now have been stuck with a broken disabled vehicle that Carvana LLC financed thru in house financing thru XXXX since day one. This leaves me no other choice as to follow thru with my formal complaint. If needed provided the lack of sufficient resolve per my expectations which will be to the fullest extent of the laws regulating such transactions then I will be left no choice but to follow thru with contacting my attorney to file a formal civil litigation law suit to pursue my claims in addition to the punitive damages incurred and soon to be incurred down the line as a result of Carvana LLC and its Affiliates overt actions and clear malicious  intentions. Me and my family are now left without a vehicle having to walk in excessive heat to handle my normal family obligations, or pay excessive tolls to take XXXX rides, and for many this would already have been a total loss of their job, or other heavy gravity consequences at that hands of Carvana LLC,  XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and their employees. As I have told Carvana LLC in many forms of communication apologies dont explain to a persons boss why an employee isnt reliably available and on time or able to hold their end of their own obligations because he cant get to work to fufill his responsibilities. I am left only to firmly believe and firmly can prove Carvana LLC in addition to its affiliates commited overt consumer fraud against me and in doing so severly violated Consumer Finacial Protection Act, UDAAP, Truth in Lending Act, ECOA, and AZ Lemon Laws blatantly  robbing me of my {$2900.00} Down Payment I paid and has posted as a debit to my account for such. Above all the vehicle is still unfixed in the shop and out of my posession to even fathom a return if I chose to do so, and still XXXX  has no formal approval from XXXX XXXX to Fix the Vehicle. Me and my family as I described to Carvana LLC shouldnt have to sacrifice our choice of vehicle  because they chose to DECEPTIVELY FALSIFY their advertisements and FAILED to fully address and fix the blatant issues I am having addressed in the mechanic shop now which again still havent been granted approval by XXXX XXXX to even start the repairs, and clearly shouldnt have been a problem in the first place before they list a product for sale as fully operable in all areas per their own inspection and details within the advertisement page online. I can only come to one conclusion from my experience, understanding of the presiding laws, and the nature of conduct/gravity of their violations","date_sent_to_company":"2020-08-31T09:32:44.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"85018","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3822641","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Carvana Group, LLC","date_received":"2020-08-31T07:08:19.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Fraudulent loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Therefore at that time we determined as a family it would be best to go with the XXXX  and despite the year and mileage on <em>account</em> of the history of the jeeps XXXX and 150pt inspection records and care for thereof that made us feel we were <em>making</em> a purchase of a quality fully functional vehicle as Carvana continued to what we now know to be falsly promoted via email and on their site."]},"sort":[6.1424227,"3822641"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":16,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":16}]}},"product":{"doc_count":16,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, 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":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":2},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":16,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting 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":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1},{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Need information about your loan balance or loan terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraudulent loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Privacy issues","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":16,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":15},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":16,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":16}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":16,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":16}]}},"company":{"doc_count":16,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AES/PHEAA","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bilt Technologies, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Carvana Group, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Continental Finance Company, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. Collections West, Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":16,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":16,"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":6},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":16,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"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":{}}}