{"took":231,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":65,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21063028","_score":17.112635,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because Select Portfolio Servicing is failing to comply with Regulation X ( 12 CFR 1024.41 ). Despite my active, timely, and good-faith participation in the loss mitigation process, SPS is engaging in a cycle of \" document loop '' tactics, providing contradictory instructions, and failing to provide a single point of contact who can finalize my application.\n\nDetailed Narrative of Events For the past four months, I have been attempting to finalize my Loss Mitigation applications for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX. My case has been stalled by the following : HOA/Rental Clarifications : I have provided verbal and written clarification for HOA fees and rental income deposits at least four separate times. Each time, agents ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX XXXX confirm the data is submitted and acceptable, only for a subsequent agent ( e.g., XXXX ) to claim the information is missing or \" unacceptable '' weeks later. \nProcedural Stalling : I have corrected P & L statements and bank statements per specific agent feedback, only to be told by the next agent that those same documents are now \" out of date '' due to the passage of timetime caused entirely by SPSs slow review cycles. \nFailure to Comply with Regulation X : SPS is failing to act in good faith by continually reversing prior approvals of my documentation. I am being subjected to \" dual tracking '' while SPS ignores the fact that my file has been complete for weeks.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-08T19:34:57.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"77040","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21063028","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2026-04-08T19:27:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing this <em>complaint</em> <em>because</em> Select Portfolio Servicing is failing to comply with Regulation X ( 12 CFR 1024.41 ). Despite my active, timely, and good-faith participation in the loss mitigation process, SPS is engaging in a cycle of \" document loop '' tactics, providing contradictory instructions, and failing to provide a single point of <em>contact</em> who can finalize my application."]},"sort":[17.112635,"21063028"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6951867","_score":16.063177,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I'm filing this complaint against PayPal for unresolved and outstanding issues regarding Fraudulent activity made on my PayPal account. \n\nI was disputing a fraudulent seller ( XXXX ) on PayPal whom withdrew funds using PayPal and provided no goods or services. \n\nI ordered a {$55.00} electric shaving razor my PayPal account was drawn for the transaction and I received no product and/or shipment or service. I reached out to the seller to no avail. My emails were ignored and the contact phone numbers were disconnected. \n\nI sent a series of emails to PayPal to dispute the seller as fraudulent. And was told that because I filed a dispute with the credit/debit card XXXX Bank that I would be required to work with that credit entity solely until the dispute is resolved. \n\nBecause PayPal provided guaranteed payment protection and refunds due to fraud... I contacted requesting that the cancellation of the initial claim with XXXX ( as communicated through PayPal ) shall not proceed. \n\nHowever upon contacting PayPal regarding the issue and escalating the issue with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. PayPal determined 'falsely ' that the XXXX Bank dispute was still pending an outcome which is not true. \n\nThe XXXX Bank claim is resolved and the PayPal dispute and claim should proceed as requested. \n\nPayPal provided a 'false narrative ' and did not correctly address the issue and/or read correctly the information submitted to them. \n\nAgain I provided the disposition of the claim made through XXXX Bank to PayPal. \n\nI'm requesting as I requested earlier Payment protection due to fraud. And a refund of the payment made through PayPal of {$55.00}... \n\nPayPal would not take responsibility. \n\n-A total lack of resolve on the part of PayPal XXXX Total ignorance and lack thereof of responsibility. \n\nThe complaint written to the XXXX XXXX XXXX was beyond warranted and the matter was/is still 'unresolved ' ... PayPal should have addressed these issues as they occured. This is not customer ( support ) service at all. What it is is bad/poor customer support ( if you can call it that at all ) ... services that are inadequate for anyone 's use. \n\nPayPal is solely responsible for the Fraudulent illegal activity ... and instead of resolving the issue ( s ) is protecting the use of Fraud and Fraudulent activities... This is illegal! And is 'Against the Law '. ( PayPal loses over XXXX XXXX XXXX dollars every year to Fraud ) On XX/XX/XXXX I received a notice via PayPal that read the following ... \" Please contact your financial institution ... '' -You will need to contact your financial institution or credit card company directly for additional information and final resolution regarding the disputed transaction. If you want to cancel that claim you will also need to contact your financial institution directly ( clicking Cancel case in the PayPal Resolution Center won't cancel the claim with your financial institution ). \n\n\nThis implies that Paypal can not continue until the claim is cancelled. Why would they ( Paypal ) be providing me the above statement...? \n\n\nThe claim with XXXX Bank was never processed there was no dispute or claim. \nPayPal claims they can not continue or decide this case ... because a claim was processed with another institution. This is 'not ' true! No claim was ever processed. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contacted PayPal with the following ... 'Im in the process of cancelling the claim with XXXX Bank XXXX Please provide re-assurance that once completed I'll have refund protection through PayPal. I want to check to make sure... Thanks for all you do. ' I did not receive an immediate response so I contacted again the following day XX/XX/XXXX.... Please provide the information I'm requesting. If I cancel my claim with XXXX Bank... may I continue with my disputed claim filed through PayPal? Or may I have to re-file? Please respond with the information I'm requesting as this is a time sensitive matter. \n\n\nPaypal ignored and/or refused to respond to the above letters. They provided no acknowledgement and no reason for there failure. \n\n\nI contacted again on XXXX... Please continue with the case filed against XXXX... The dispute filed with XXXX XXXX Bank has been dis-continued. Therefore, there is no longer a conflict of interest. Again please continue with my initial complaint filed against XXXX. \n\n\nAgain the letter was ignored and not responded to. I received 'zero ' communication not one letter of acknowledgement to the above three letters. I did not receive a response from PayPal until I filed a complaint with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\nNo response was received by the XXXX XXXX XXXX till after XX/XX/XXXX ...? \n\n\nI wrote ... 'All information sent and received by the Bureau is open to public scrutiny ... And released as Public Information '. I advise that you respond to Complaint # XXXX in kind with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. They were a 'Failure to Respond '. \n\n\nIt's obvious to me that something is seriously wrong with PayPal. Why did they refuse to respond? And why did it take them so long to respond? - '' This is a time sensitive matter. \" -? \n\n\nAgain PayPal claims they can not continue with the case because a claim has been processed by another institution. No claim was ever processed. You can verify this information by contacting XXXX Bank -no claim was ever processed. \n\n\nPayPal is a failure for providing inadequate customer service and implicit in protecting the use of fraud and fraudulent activities- PayPal 's failure to communicate is the direct result for/of these issues. \n\n\nPayPal needs to take responsibility. And acknowledge there wrongs. \n\nI am owed a refund on my PayPal account due to fraudulent activity. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX enclosure","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-10T04:09:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"98133","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6951867","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2023-05-10T03:26:14.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PayPal <em>claims</em> they can not continue or decide this case ... <em>because</em> a <em>claim</em> was processed with another institution. This is 'not ' true! No <em>claim</em> was ever processed. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I <em>contacted</em> PayPal with the following ... 'Im in the process of cancelling the <em>claim</em> with XXXX Bank XXXX Please provide re-assurance that once <em>completed</em> I'll <em>have</em> refund protection through PayPal. I want to check to make sure..."]},"sort":[16.063177,"6951867"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18523332","_score":16.054321,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Issue : Systemic Failure to Conduct Individualized Investigations, Misrepresentation of Complaints, and Obstruction of a Valid Chargeback ( CareCredit acct # XXXX ). \n\nPurpose of This Escalation : This submission is a procedural and regulatory escalation, not a duplicate complaint. \n\nIt is prompted by the respondents repeated failure to engage in good faith with multiple, distinct CFPB complaints filed on different dates, each addressing separate violations, which the respondent improperly collapsed into a single recycled response packet from Synchrony Bank. \n\nThis pattern mirrors how the respondent mishandled the underlying billing dispute and chargeback itself : by evading evidence, ignoring timelines, and substituting conclusory denials for investigation.\n\nII. Multiple Distinct Complaints Were Filed Not Duplicates I filed separate CFPB complaints as new violations occurred. Each complaint had a different factual basis, different date of harm, and different regulatory concern. These include, but are not limited to : XX/XX/XXXX Failure to properly investigate and engage with evidence related to denied hospital services and billing integrity. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Discovery that my account had been closed during an active dispute, without advance notice, and without any legitimate basis communicated to me. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Complaint regarding the concealment of a critical hospital response letter that had been relied upon to deny my dispute but was never disclosed to me during the dispute process available to them since XXXX of 2024. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Complaint regarding post-closure misconduct, including tradeline disappearance, contradictory explanations, and retroactive narrative changes. \n\nEach complaint arose from new conduct. None were restatements of earlier grievances. \n\nXXXX. Respondents Improper One-Packet Response Strategy Despite the distinct nature of these complaints, the respondent answered all of them with : The same response letter ( XXXX ) The same attachments The same generalized denials No acknowledgment of new facts, dates, or allegations This response strategy demonstrates : No individualized review No complaint-specific investigation No engagement with evidence submitted No attempt to address the actual regulatory violations raised This is not a clerical oversight. It is a systemic practice that renders the CFPB complaint process meaningless in this case. \n\nIV. This Procedural Failure Mirrors the Mishandling of the Underlying Dispute The respondents CFPB conduct is consistent with how it handled the original chargeback : Evidence was ignored or requested repeatedly despite already being on file Timelines were compressed unrealistically ( e.g., a reinvestigation reopened on XX/XX/XXXX and closed again by XX/XX/XXXX, without substantive engagement ) Decisions were made without addressing the consumers submissions Conclusions were asserted without explanation A legitimate investigation, whether of a billing dispute or a CFPB complaint, requires actual engagement with the records. That did not occur at any stage. \n\nV. Concealment of Critical Evidence Undermined the Dispute From the Start A hospital response letter, relied upon to deny my dispute, was concealed from me for months and only disclosed after regulatory pressure and FOIA obligations forced its release nearly a year later. \n\nBecause this letter was withheld : I was denied the opportunity to rebut false hospital assertions in real time I could not submit counter-evidence during the active dispute The denial was procedurally tainted from inception The respondent can not claim a fair or complete investigation when it relied on evidence that was never shared with the consumer. \n\nVI. Retaliatory Account Closure During an Active Dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered ; not through notice, but through being locked out of online access, that my account had been closed during an ongoing dispute. \n\nI was given contradictory explanations, including : That the account was closed because I requested a dispute ( which had been ongoing since the prior year ) That the account was closed due to being over the limit, despite the over-limit status being caused by fees and charges added during active investigations No advance notice was provided. No written justification was sent contemporaneously. \n\nXXXX. Fabricated Fraud / New Account Narrative Explicitly Disclaimed I did not : File a fraud complaint at any time Request a fraud investigation Request a new account Consent to a new account number Receive a new card Receive mailed notice of any new account Any account allegedly created after the closure of my original account was created without my consent and without my initiation. \n\nI explicitly reject and disclaim : Any assertion that I initiated a fraud claim Any request that I submit sworn affidavits or contact identity theft services for a claim I never made This appears to be an attempt to : Erase the history of the original dispute Sever continuity with the account I actually held and its link to regulatory complaints. \n\nUndermine the credibility of my longstanding billing complaint VIII. The Underlying Chargeback Was Always Valid The original dispute concerned service failures and billing integrity, not fraud. \n\nDenied or improperly rendered services were billed, disputed promptly, and supported with documentation. This should have been a straightforward chargeback. \n\nInstead, the respondent : Avoided addressing the merits Relied on concealed third-party assertions Escalated fees during investigations Closed the account mid-dispute Introduced a false fraud narrative only after regulatory complaints were filed This sequence demonstrates evasion, not investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-07T06:01:44.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18523332","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-01-07T05:27:56.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I explicitly reject and disclaim : Any assertion that I initiated a fraud <em>claim</em> Any request that I submit sworn affidavits or <em>contact</em> identity theft services for a <em>claim</em> I never made This appears to be an attempt to : Erase the history of the original dispute Sever continuity with the account I actually held and its link to regulatory <em>complaints</em>. \n\nUndermine the credibility of my longstanding billing <em>complaint</em> VIII."]},"sort":[16.054321,"18523332"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19664582","_score":15.479513,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Company : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX ( Customer Relations signed by XXXX XXXX ) Product : Mortgage servicing Loan modification / loss mitigation Issue type ( CFPB ) : Trouble getting a loan modification ; servicing errors ; inaccurate information ; document execution / notary scheduling issues ; error resolution handling What outcome I want Immediate escalation to a loss-mitigation/Executive Resolution supervisor empowered to finalize my modification. \nWritten correction of all false or inaccurate statements made about notary scheduling, missed appointments, and the reason ( XXXX ) my modification was delayed/denied. \nA complete, dated, itemized timeline of every loss-mitigation action taken ( all outbound sends, all inbound receipts, and all internal review notes ) and copies of the records relied upon.\n\nA confirmed notary appointment ( with notary name/company, date/time window, and the phone number that will contact me ) OR written permission to use my own notary without penalty/delay.\n\nConfirmation that no adverse credit reporting, fees, foreclosure activity, or negative servicing notes will occur due to the servicers errors/misrepresentations and the resulting delay.\n\nWhat happened ( consumer narrative ) I am filing a complaint because the servicer/lender is misrepresenting key facts about my VA loan modification processspecifically, the scheduling of a notary appointmentand has also made inconsistent or false statements about why my modification was delayed/denied. \nOn XX/XX/year>, the company issued a written resolution letter ( Research Reference # XXXX ; File Number XXXX ) addressed to the Michigan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and copied to me. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter claims : They assisted [ me ] in scheduling a notary appointment for XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX, and that I later called and they confirmed that appointment. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX further claims that on XX/XX/year> I told them I missed the scheduled notary appointment, and then they scheduled a new appointment for XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have audio recordings from the notary/service provider confirming that the notary appointment was never scheduled as represented. The written statements in the companys letter are therefore false and misleading. I am attaching the audio files and can provide transcripts. \nIn addition, the companys explanations for why my loan modification was delayed/handled the way it was have been inconsistent. The letter also describes repeated execution issues ( signature formatting and notary stamping concerns ) and claims it made multiple re-sends of my modification documents between XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX want the CFPB to require the company to produce the complete servicing record showing : ( a ) exactly what documents were sent, ( b ) exactly what was received and when, ( c ) who reviewed it, ( d ) what defect they identified, and ( e ) what precise instructions were provided to cure it. \nFinally, the company labeled its response a RESPA RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ERROR and stated after completing a reasonable investigation it has been determined no error occurred, while also claiming I have the right to access documents relied upon. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, because their written narrative about notary scheduling is contradicted by the notarys own confirmation, an error did occur, and the company must correct the account history and provide the supporting records. \nWhy this is a problem The servicers written statements contain material inaccuracies about loss-mitigation steps ( notary scheduling ) that directly impact my ability to complete a modification. \nMisrepresenting servicing actions and then denying error after a reasonable investigation undermines the accuracy, transparency, and fairness required in mortgage servicing and loss mitigation. \nI should not be harmed ( fees, credit reporting, foreclosure risk, delays ) due to the companys misstatements and process failures. \nSupporting documents Im attaching Company resolution letter dated XX/XX/year> ( XXXX XXXX / Customer Relations ) describing the notary scheduling and modification timeline. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Audio files from the notary/service provider confirming the appointment was never scheduled ( and transcripts if needed ).\n\nAny call logs, emails, texts, or screenshots showing attempted scheduling / lack of confirmation.\n\nRegulatory basis : This involves loss mitigation servicing under Regulation X ( RESPA ), 12 CFR 1024.41, and error resolution / information requests under 12 CFR 1024.351024.36. The servicer provided a written RESPA response to notice of error but the notary scheduling facts stated in its letter are contradicted by the notary providers confirmation, requiring correction and production of records relied upon.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-20T20:32:04.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"48239","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19664582","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2026-02-20T20:06:35.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Finally, the company labeled its response a RESPA RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ERROR and stated after <em>completing</em> a reasonable investigation it has been determined no error occurred, while also <em>claiming</em> I <em>have</em> the right to access documents relied upon. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, <em>because</em> their written <em>narrative</em> about notary scheduling is contradicted by the notarys own confirmation, an error did occur, and the company must correct the account history and provide the supporting records."]},"sort":[15.479513,"19664582"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22120995","_score":15.205456,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My FHA-insured mortgage on my primary residence was originally serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX approved me for an FHA Special Forbearance Plan covering 12 monthly installments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Under the plan, my contractual monthly Total Payment Due was {$0.00}. XXXX confirmed in writing that no late charges would be assessed and that I would be reported to credit bureaus as current and in a forbearance plan. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a written notice confirming that my FHA Special Forbearance Plan was complete. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a formal written notice stating : \" We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. '' The notice expressly acknowledged that XXXX was prohibited from initiating any foreclosure-related notice or filing while the complete application was under review, and committed to a decision no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \nBefore XXXX completed the loss mitigation evaluation, my loan was transferred to Carrington Mortgage Services , LLC . The pending modification review had not been completed by XXXX before transfer. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( k ), Carrington was required as the transferee servicer to honor the complete loss mitigation application that XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, and to continue the evaluation rather than restart or cancel it.\n\nCarrington has since taken the following actions, each of which I believe violates federal mortgage servicing law and FHA loss mitigation requirements : ( 1 ) Carrington demanded lump-sum repayment of the entire forborne amount and threatened foreclosure. FHA loss mitigation guidance under HUD Handbook 4000.1 does not permit servicers to require lump-sum repayment of forborne amounts as a precondition for bringing an FHA-insured loan current. Multiple FHA loss mitigation options including the COVID-19 Recovery Modification, FHA-HAMP, Standalone Partial Claim, and Recovery Standalone Partial Claim must be evaluated before foreclosure can proceed.\n\n( 2 ) Carrington cancelled my complete loss mitigation application without providing any written notice or written decision. During a phone call, Carrington informed me that my application had been cancelled because they had attempted to call me for a \" second attestation '' and I did not answer. I never received any written request from Carrington for additional documentation, any written request for an attestation, or any written notice of cancellation. This violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ), which requires a written decision stating the specific reason for any denial of a complete loss mitigation application. It also violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ), which requires the servicer to provide written notice specifying what additional information is needed and a reasonable deadline to provide it. A missed phone call is not a permitted basis for cancellation under Regulation X.\n\n( 3 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Carrington issued a Maryland Notice of Intent to Foreclose under Maryland Real Property Article 7-105.1 ( c ). The notice lists my Date of Default as XX/XX/XXXX a date that falls within my active XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan, during which my contractual monthly payment was {$0.00}. The notice claims my loan is 269 days past due and demands {$21000.00} to cure. Carrington appears to have re-characterized forbearance-period suspended installments as delinquent payments after taking over servicing, contrary to the written terms of the XXXX forbearance plan and contrary to XXXXXXXX XXXX written confirmation that I would be reported as current and in a forbearance plan. Carrington also elected not to offer prefile mediation. Under the Notice of Intent to Foreclose, a foreclosure action ( Order to Docket ) may be filed in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX. \n( 4 ) Carrington has not provided me with a single point of contact for my loss mitigation file, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.40.\n\n( 5 ) Carrington has engaged in conduct consistent with prohibited \" dual tracking '' under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ) and ( g ) by issuing a Notice of Intent to Foreclose while a complete loss mitigation application received by the prior servicer on XX/XX/XXXX should have remained pending under federal law.\n\nThe cumulative effect of Carrington 's actions is that an improperly calculated default has been used to initiate Maryland foreclosure proceedings against my primary residence, despite the existence of written documentation from the prior servicer establishing both ( a ) an active forbearance plan with {$0.00} contractually due during the disputed default period, and ( b ) a complete loss mitigation application that was pending evaluation at the time of servicing transfer.\n\nI have attached the following supporting documentation : XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan Approval dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Forbearance Plan Completion Notice dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Post-Forbearance Acknowledgment of Complete Application dated XX/XX/XXXX ; and Carrington Notice of Intent to Foreclose dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nI am simultaneously filing a complaint with the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation and am submitting a Mortgage Assistance Application and formal cover letter directly to Carrington requesting reinstatement of my loss mitigation evaluation as of XX/XX/XXXX. \nGiven that Carrington may file an Order to Docket in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX, I respectfully request expedited review of this complaint. \n\nA few things this narrative does deliberately It opens with XXXXXXXX XXXX written record, not your hardship. Reviewers triage hundreds of complaints. The strongest hook isn't \" I'm in trouble '' it's \" the prior servicer 's written documents contradict the current servicer 's actions. '' That framing makes the violation pattern obvious from the first paragraph. \nIt quotes XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX letter directly. That single sentence \" We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX '' is the most powerful sentence in your entire file. Burying it would be a mistake. Quoting it ensures the reviewer reads it.\n\nIt numbers the violations. Reviewers love enumerated lists because they can map each numbered item to a specific regulatory citation and require Carrington to respond to each one. A flowing narrative is easier to wave away ; a numbered list is not.\n\nIt puts the math dispute front and center. The XX/XX/XXXX default date during a documented forbearance period is the single most exploitable factual error in Carrington 's case. It appears twice once in item ( 3 ) and once in the closing paragraph to ensure no reviewer misses it.\n\nIt closes with the urgency hook. The XX/XX/XXXX potential filing date is the single most important fact for triage prioritization. Putting it in the final sentence guarantees the reviewer sees it when deciding queue priority.\n\nNo personal info, per the form 's instruction. No name, no address, no loan numbers, no SSN. The CFPB form collects all of that separately. This field is pure narrative.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-12T16:48:27.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"210XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22120995","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","date_received":"2026-05-12T15:52:20.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This field is pure <em>narrative</em>."]},"sort":[15.205456,"22120995"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22683332","_score":14.767749,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB FORMAL COMPLAINT Institution : U.S. Bank Branch Involved : U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Employee Involved : XXXX XXXX XXXX Branch Manager Complaint Type : Denied Access to Funds/ Improper Account Handling / Potential Discriminatory Treatment Complaint Narrative : On XX/XX/year>, I visited the U.S. Bank branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX to request a cashiers check in the approximate amount of {$4900.00} from an account with an available balance of approximately {$5400.00}. \n\nI interacted with XXXX Branch Manager XXXX XXXX. Despite sufficient available funds, XXXX XXXX refused to process my cashiers check request. He referenced another unrelated account that he claimed was overdrawn and stated he was refusing my transaction because he was protecting the bank. \n\nWhen I requested the written bank policy supporting the denial of access to my available funds, XXXX XXXX acknowledged there was no written policy and stated the refusal was based entirely on his discretion. \n\nI then became increasingly concerned when XXXX XXXX stated he intended to contact another U.S. Bank branch to interfere with my ability to complete transactions there as well. \n\nApproximately at XXXX XXXX, because I feared losing access to my funds after XXXX XXXX statements, I transferred approximately {$3500.00} via XXXX to my sister, XXXX XXXX, in an effort to protect my access to my money. \n\nApproximately at XXXX XXXX, due to fear regarding possible restrictions on my accounts, I transferred approximately {$1900.00} to XXXX XXXX. \n\nApproximately between XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX contacted the U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX branch in XXXX, California and communicated with employees there, including an employee identified to me as XXXX ( phone number XXXX ). \n\nI was informed by XXXX that XXXX XXXX repeatedly messaged and contacted several XXXX branch employees requesting that they block or interfere with my banking transactions despite no documented fraud alert, no written policy, and no apparent legitimate basis for blocking my access to available funds. According to XXXX, XXXX XXXX was blowing up the branch with repeated communications regarding my accounts and transactions. \n\nI was further informed that XXXX reviewed my account and found no legitimate reason to deny or block my requested transaction and declined to participate in restricting my access to funds. \n\nAt approximately XXXX XXXX, I contacted U.S. Bank Client Services regarding the incident and my concerns regarding denial of access to funds and attempted interference with my banking activity. \n\nAt approximately XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Client Relationship Consultant ( NMLS XXXX ), provided me with the contact information for District Manager XXXX XXXX. \n\nAs a result of this incident, I experienced severe emotional distress, XXXX, fear regarding access to my finances, and fear of retaliation due to bank employees having access to my financial records, personal identifying information, and home address. \n\nFollowing this incident, I experienced an XXXX  attack accompanied by profuse bleeding.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-29T00:37:14.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"95630","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22683332","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2026-05-29T00:24:20.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB FORMAL <em>COMPLAINT</em> Institution : U.S. Bank Branch Involved : U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Employee Involved : XXXX XXXX XXXX Branch Manager <em>Complaint</em> Type : Denied Access to Funds/ Improper Account Handling / Potential Discriminatory Treatment <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : On XX/XX/year>, I visited the U.S."]},"sort":[14.767749,"22683332"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"23031524","_score":14.406292,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this follow-up complaint because Regional Acceptance Corporation continues to claim that the balance being reported and collected is accurate while failing to provide the documentation and calculations necessary to independently verify that claim.\n\nRegional has now provided some records, including a retail installment contract, transaction history, extension agreements, total loss correspondence, GAP claim determination documents, and account statements. However, the production of documents has created additional questions that Regional has not answered.\n\nThe primary issue is that Regional continues to provide conclusions without providing the calculations supporting those conclusions. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX NO DEFICIENCY BALANCE CALCULATION Regional repeatedly claims that a principal balance of {$9700.00} remained after the vehicle was declared a total loss, insurance proceeds were applied, warranty-related credits were applied, and the GAP claim was reviewed. \n\nHowever, Regional has never provided a deficiency balance worksheet showing step-by-step how it arrived at the {$9700.00} figure. \n\nInstead, Regional has simply provided the ending number and instructed me to accept it as accurate. \n\nI am requesting the actual calculation. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX INSURANCE PAYMENT EXCEEDED THE PAYOFF FIGURE SHOWN ON THE GAP DETERMINATION Regionals own GAP determination documents state : Payoff as of date of loss : {$11000.00} Insurance settlement : {$14000.00} Warranty-related credits applied GAP benefit : {$0.00} Regional simultaneously claims that a principal deficiency of {$9700.00} remained after these events. \n\nThis is precisely why a deficiency calculation is required. \n\nI am not claiming the balance is impossible. I am stating that Regional has not explained how these figures reconcile. \n\nRegional has produced documents showing the beginning and ending figures while omitting the calculations connecting them. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX NO COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF THE GAP DETERMINATION Regional provided a GAP determination letter but did not provide : The GAP addendum or GAP contract relied upon. \nThe complete XXXX claim file. \nThe supporting calculations used during the XXXX review. \nThe basis for concluding that no XXXX benefit was payable. \nRegional has therefore provided the result of the review without providing the information necessary to independently evaluate the accuracy of that result. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX XXXX PAYMENT EXTENSIONS WITH NO EXPLANATION OF THEIR FINANCIAL IMPACT Regionals records show : A XXXX extension. \nXXXX separate XXXX extensions. \nAn additional XXXX extension. \nDespite relying upon those extensions as part of the explanation for the remaining balance, Regional has never provided a calculation showing : How much additional interest accrued because of each extension. \nHow each extension affected the maturity date. \nHow each extension affected the final deficiency balance. \nWhether those amounts were excluded from XXXX coverage and, if so, why. \nRegionals position appears to be that extensions contributed significantly to the remaining balance, yet Regional has never quantified that impact. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX THE BALANCE REMAINED SURPRISINGLY HIGH DESPITE YEARS OF PAYMENTS The transaction history reflects years of payments. \n\nHowever, the principal balance remained substantially higher than one would expect without a detailed explanation regarding the impact of interest accrual, extensions, fees, reversals, and other account activity. \n\nRegional has not provided a narrative accounting explaining how payments were applied over time and how those applications ultimately resulted in the claimed deficiency balance. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX NO DIRECT CONTACT INFORMATION Regionals response is signed by XXXX XXXX, Senior Vice President and Process Management Lead. \n\nHowever, no direct email address, extension, department contact information, or other means of documented communication was provided. \n\nI am requesting clarification regarding whether XXXX XXXX personally reviewed the dispute, supporting documents, account history, and CFPB materials before issuing the response. \n\nIf she personally reviewed the matter, then she should be able to address these questions directly. \n\nIf she did not personally review the matter, then Regional should identify the individual who conducted the investigation and the records reviewed. \n\nI am also requesting a valid email address for the department responsible for handling this dispute so that communications can be documented and preserved for my protection and for the accuracy of the record. \n\nRED FLAG # XXXX REGIONAL CONTINUES TO REPORT THE BALANCE WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SUPPORTING CALCULATION Regional continues to maintain that the balance is accurate. \n\nHowever, Regional has not provided the actual calculation supporting the amount claimed. \n\nThe issue is no longer whether documents exist. \n\nThe issue is whether Regional can clearly explain and substantiate the balance it continues to report and claim is owed. \n\nUnder the Fair Credit Reporting Act, furnishers have obligations regarding the accuracy and completeness of information reported to consumer reporting agencies and must conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information. \n\nRepeating that the balance is accurate is not the same as demonstrating that the balance is accurate. \n\nI am requesting documentation sufficient to independently verify the claimed balance, including a complete deficiency calculation, payoff calculation, XXXX documentation, extension impact calculations, credit reporting information, and an explanation reconciling the figures contained within Regionals own records. \n\nUntil Regional provides that information, the accuracy and completeness of the reported balance remain disputed.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-09T15:45:15.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"98503","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"23031524","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-06-09T15:35:12.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this follow-up <em>complaint</em> <em>because</em> Regional Acceptance Corporation continues to <em>claim</em> that the balance being reported and collected is accurate while failing to provide the documentation and calculations necessary to independently verify that <em>claim</em>.\n\nRegional has now provided some records, including a retail installment contract, transaction history, extension agreements, total loss correspondence, GAP <em>claim</em> determination documents, and account statements."]},"sort":[14.406292,"23031524"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18136063","_score":14.351344,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding American Expresss failure to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z in the handling of billing disputes and the issuance of credits for invalid charges. \nI disputed XXXX charges that were installments of a larger transaction for services that were not provided as promised. I submitted documentation supporting my claim, including a written rebuttal to the merchants response with screenshots showing what actually occurred. The merchant did not submit evidence that negated my claim. American Express credited XXXX installment but denied the other, which further indicates that the dispute handling was not based on a consistent or reasonable evaluation of the evidence.\n\nAmerican Express later refused to reopen the dispute, despite previously stating in writing that the investigation could be reopened if additional documentation indicating a potential change in outcome was provided. I submitted additional documentation and contacted American Express within that timeframe.\n\nOn subsequent recorded calls, American Express representatives made statements indicating that dispute outcomes were predetermined and that customer-submitted documentation would not be meaningfully reviewed. On\n\none recorded call, a representative stated that American Express didnt really look into many disputes, especially the small ones, which were described as transactions of {$25.00} or less, explaining that such disputes are written off because when a customer files a claim, the bank costs {$25.00} to investigate. When I asked whether I could re-upload documentation supporting my dispute, a representative stated there was no\npoint in submitting additional evidence. Representatives further stated that the dispute could not be reopened because it had been reopened too many times. However, this refusal was not based on a completed, evidence-based investigation. Instead, representatives stated that reopening the claim again would result in the same outcome regardless of any additional documentation.\n\nDuring a recorded call, an American Express representative explicitly confirmed that even if American Express determined the charge was invalid, it would not issue a credit, explaining that American Express can not make the merchant pay.\n\nThis position directly contradicts Regulation Z, which requires an issuer to conduct a reasonable investigation and to credit the consumers account if a charge is found invalid, regardless of whether the merchant reimburses the issuer.\n\nContradictory Written Representations American Expresss refusal to reopen the dispute contradicts its own prior written communication, in which it stated : If you further question the charge and in case you have documentation indicating that a change in the outcome, please contact us within 30 days and we will be glad to reopen the investigation for you.\n\nDespite submitting additional documentation and contacting American Express within this timeframe, representatives later stated that the claim could not be reopened and that the outcome would not change regardless of evidence. These contradictory statements demonstrate a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and raise concerns regarding deceptive or unfair practices.\n\nSystemic Compliance Concerns This issue appears to be systemic rather than isolated. On multiple occasions, American Express representatives provided statements that contradict federal law, including : That small-dollar disputes are not meaningfully reviewed because investigation costs exceed the transaction amount ; That a consumer refund depends on whether the merchant reimburses American Express ; and That dispute outcomes are predetermined and would not change even with additional evidence.\n\nThese statements indicate a failure to conduct reasonable investigations as required by Regulation Z and suggest internal policies or training that are non-compliant with federal consumer prot\n\nection law. Account Closure After Escalation My accounts were closed following a period of dispute activity related to the charges described above. After the accounts were closed, I contacted American Express to ask why the closures occurred. Initially, representatives stated they could not provide an explanation. On a subsequent recorded call, an American Express representative explained, in substance, that the accounts were closed due to the volume and nature of disputes I had filed, including what were described as small-dollar disputes, and referenced the cost to American Express of investigating such disputes. The accounts were therefore closed after dispute activity and discussions regarding dispute volume, and before I raised formal compliance concerns with American Express executive leadership. This sequence raises serious concerns regarding the treatment of good-faith dispute activity and whether account-closure decisions were influenced by cost-based or non-compliant dispute handling practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T09:32:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27513","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18136063","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-12-18T09:19:39.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am filing this <em>complaint</em> regarding American Expresss failure to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z in the handling of billing disputes and the issuance of credits for invalid charges. \nI disputed XXXX charges that were installments of a larger transaction for services that were not provided as promised."]},"sort":[14.351344,"18136063"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8155298","_score":14.282387,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX I am submitting this complaint again because I started a dispute with my Apple credit card by Goldman Sachs for a {$4000.00} payment made to Caught a Deal a contracting company on XX/XX/XXXX that did not provide the service agreed upon or completed any job as described. The dispute was reversed despite having submitted evidence that supports my claim and Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( the \" Bank '' ) failed to consider the facts, dates, order, and sequence in which the events happened. \n\nBank Response to my first complaint : Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( the \" Bank '' ) received the above-referenced complaint related to the Apple Card via the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( `` CFPB '' ) Complaint Portal on XX/XX/XXXX. The Bank appreciates the opportunity to address the concerns raised by XXXX XXXX  ( the \" Customer '' ) related to a transaction dispute with the Merchant Caught a Deal in the amount of {$4000.00}. \nThe Bank conducted an investigation and confirmed no Bank error occurred. The Customer initially disputed the transaction on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Bank applied a temporary credit while the dispute was investigated. Based on the investigation and a review of the evidence provided, the Bank resolved the dispute in favor of the Merchant. The evidence confirmed the Customer was provided with the Terms and Conditions and a contract which were both signed by the Customer. The Customer advised the Merchant that there was a hard time finding funding for the project and the Customer requested to delay the project until additional third-party funding could be found. During this time the Customer filed transaction disputes with multiple financial institutions against the Merchant. As a result, the Merchant pulled the work supplies from the property and ceased work until the transaction disputes could be resolved. The Customer 's evidence was insufficient in showing what damages occurred, or the Merchant was unwilling to work with the Customer. As a result, the temporary credit that was applied to the Customer 's account was reversed on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Bank sent the Customer an email detailing the dispute outcome. The Customer should contact the Merchant directly with questions or concerns related to the transaction. Based on the above details, the Bank kindly requests for this complainttobeclosed. \n\nMy Respond : Payments made to the merchant were always on time. According to the contract signed, XXXX XXXX of the total cost had to be made at the start of the project. The number of payments made was greater than XXXX XXXX at all times to a point in which payments reached XXXX XXXX of the whole project cost within a week. Since we understand there were additions to the project with no work order submitted by the way, my brother did not know any better than accepting these additions with no work order submitted and despite these additions, my brother was able to keep up payments at a XXXX XXXX rate. \n\n\nThe merchant was always requesting more funds and he came out with reasons that later on were found to not be true. despite the merchant requesting more funds my brother 's payments were always at 70 %. You must understand that additional costs were incurred with the progression of the project. Later on, we found out that no work was completed even the additions did not start and the project was not even close to the finish line. Damages were caused by the contractor for bad labor at the property and he did not know how to orchestrate the project. A licensed inspector came to the property right after my brother saw he was the victim of fraud he inspected the property and at the same provided a written letter giving a direct comparison to what the contractor or merchant was supposed to complete. \n\n\nThe consumer never advised the merchant to delay the project. My brother was being pushed to get more funds when he already paid 71 % of the total cost upfront. My brother has this property as a rental in which he does not live he relied on the merchant and believed the contractor was doing the job. The house is 2 hr away and my brother 's only mistake was to trust that the contractor was completing the job when in reality he was not. Pictures, inspection report, and letter from the inspector signed by the home inspector and letterhead were submitted to Apple card. it seems like they did not review them. In a new dispute, Dispute case number XXXX XXXX  we provided a detailed narrative of events explaining what happened. Detailing dates in which payments were made and showing that at the first week, my brother already paid the total cost of the project that later on had additions, and again despite this, he kept payment at 70 % and the contract states that XXXX XXXX at the start of the project and 50 % at the completion of the project. NO PROJECT WAS COMPLETED The consumer did not file transaction disputes with multiple financial institutions against the merchant while he was working as the merchant states. My brother started the disputes right after he realized he was the victim of fraud. Right after he saw that no work was done at his property when he went to the property on XX/XX/XXXX, he then started the disputes. The merchant made the customer believe he was working at the property all the months previous XXXX and came out with reasons to request more funds when the contract stated that 50 % was to be paid at the start and 50 % at the end. Please, also know that the contract itself does not comply with New Jersey XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX pointed out the contract issue. \n\n\nThe customer told the merchant in an email that he was officially terminated from the job on XX/XX/XXXX, when the merchant reached out to my brother on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about the disputes. Please, know that the merchant has not worked any more at the property since the beginning of XXXX XXXX the merchant misled my brother by making him believe he was working and for this reason, induced him to provide more payments telling him that he pays more upfront will easy the project and will result in getting better pricing. He is fabricating the facts and Apple card failed to review the documents and failed to see the dates on which the events occurred. I just provided in an email sent as of today XXXX XXXX XXXX  a document named Detail Narrative of Events in hopes Apple Card can review and see the sequence and order in which the events happened. Apple Card should review the document named pictures and videos. Also, review the inspection report and letter from the home inspector to find out what was not completed and the damages caused by the fraudulent contractor. Please, also consider the emails in which the contractor asked my brother for more money telling him that he was going to release any and all claims and the property when in reality no claims and no lien were applied because he did not complete the job, he was threatening my brother in hopes my brother gave him more money, these were tactis and in this case intimidation as well as telling my brother he was getting evicted because he missed payments. My brother all this time thought he had almost completed the work project and this is why he was trying to send more payments whenever the merchant requested them despite the fact my brother knew he was not supposed to according to the contract of just providing 50 % at the start, but my brother wanted to accommodate and truly believed the contractor, my brother was misled again. The contractor was asking for more money when no work was completed at all. I asked Apple Card to please look at the facts. I am including bank statements from the other source of payments made to the contractor to prove that payments were always made on time and that the merchant stopped working because he couldn't get more money out of my brother. The last tactic the merchant used was the settlement offer and my brother was convinced he was at fault and truly thought the work project was almost completed this is why my brother sent the last {$2000.00} payment, later found out when he visited the property that the merchant did not do almost anything and neither completed any work and caused damages for bad labor. Therefore, the merchant stopped working not because of the disputes my brother initiated. He had already left the work unfinished before my brother started the disputes. \n\nPLEASE, PRIORITIZE READING THE DETAILED NARRATIVE OF EVENTS DOCUMENT AND REVIEW BANK STATEMENTS AND CREDIT CARD STATEMENTS TO LOOK FOR CAUGHT A DEAL OR XXXX XXXX CO LOOK AT THE PAYMENT DATES AND CORROBORATE WITH THE FACT THAT PAYMENTS WERE GREATER THAN 50 %. NO PERMITS WERE PULLED BY THIS XXXX EITHER. ALSO, REVIEW EMAIL CUSTOMER WITH XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nPayments were directed to the merchant as :. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-14T02:36:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11369","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8155298","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2024-01-14T01:30:15.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The dispute was reversed despite <em>having</em> submitted evidence that supports my <em>claim</em> and Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( the \" Bank '' ) failed to consider the facts, dates, order, and sequence in which the events happened. \n\nBank Response to my first <em>complaint</em> : Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( the \" Bank '' ) received the above-referenced <em>complaint</em> related to the Apple Card via the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( `` CFPB '' ) <em>Complaint</em> Portal on XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[14.282387,"8155298"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17590904","_score":13.952471,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Against : Navy Federal Credit Union XXXX : Mishandled fraud dispute, improper reversal of provisional credit, XXXX  XXXX violations Summary of Complaint : I am filing a complaint against XXXX  XXXX Credit Union because they mishandled my fraud dispute, failed to conduct a proper investigation, and wrongfully reversed provisional credit in violation of Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). XXXX XXXX treated the fraud as if it were my fault, despite clear evidence of identity theft, account takeover, and unauthorized electronic fund transfers. \n\nDetails of the XXXX XXXX : On XX/XX/year>, I was the victim of identity theft and social engineering. I received a phone call from someone impersonating XXXX XXXX who claimed there was fraud on my account. I was later mailed a fraudulent debit card ending in XXXX that I believed came from XXXX XXXX. \n\nWhile the impersonator kept me on the phone, they accessed my XXXX XXXX account, linked an unauthorized debit card ending in XXXX, and at XXXX AM withdrew {$1000.00} instantly to that card. Multiple additional fraudulent Add Money attempts occurred at XXXX AM, XXXX AM, and XXXX AM. I did not authorize ANY of these transactions. \n\nHow XXXX XXXX Mishandled the Case : XXXX XXXX initially provided a provisional credit but later reversed it without performing a proper investigation. They failed to : Review multiple failed transaction attempts showing account takeover Investigate the unauthorized card ending in XXXX Investigate the fraudulent card mailed to me Consider the timeline and pattern of fraud Provide copies of documents used to deny my claim Provide written findings Contact me for additional information Conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation as required under XXXX  XXXX They simply reversed the provisional credit and blamed me, which is not permitted under XXXX  XXXX. \n\nXXXX  XXXX Violations : XXXX XXXX violated the following requirements : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation ( XXXX ( b ) ) Failure to provide written findings and supporting documents ( XXXX ( d ) ) Failure to provide or maintain provisional credit properly ( XXXX ( c ) ) Failure to restore funds for clear unauthorized transfers ( XXXX ) What I Am Requesting : I am asking the CFPB to require XXXX XXXX to : Reopen my fraud case Restore my provisional credit Refund the unauthorized {$1000.00} Provide all documents and evidence used in their denial Conduct a full Regulation Ecompliant investigation Supporting Documentation : I have attached a complete fraud evidence packet including : Screenshots with timestamps A full narrative A fraud timeline A copy of the fraudulent card used Documentation showing the unauthorized transactions and failed attempts Thank you for your assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-29T16:49:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"232XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17590904","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-29T16:23:36.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> Against : Navy Federal Credit Union XXXX : Mishandled fraud dispute, improper reversal of provisional credit, XXXX  XXXX violations Summary of <em>Complaint</em> : I am filing a <em>complaint</em> against XXXX  XXXX Credit Union <em>because</em> they mishandled my fraud dispute, failed to conduct a proper investigation, and wrongfully reversed provisional credit in violation of Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX )."]},"sort":[13.952471,"17590904"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19583235","_score":13.655256,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Description of the Complaint ( Complete Chronological Narrative ) I am submitting this complaint regarding false, deceptive, and intimidating representations made in connection with a civil debt collection lawsuit filed against me by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting through its legal representatives, including XXXX  XXXX XXXX and through its agents and contractors. \n\nThis complaint involves : a materially false sworn Certificate of Service a false claim of personal service the use of intimidating tactics and misleading Fugitive Recovery branding documented psychological and medical harm to my pregnant wife and XXXX XXXX failure to correct or remedy the misconduct even after being formally notified 1 ) Incident XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Intimidating card left at residence ) On XX/XX/XXXX, a process server came to my residence. \n\nI was not at home and did not open the door. I observed the individual through my home security camera. \n\nThe individual left a card with the following characteristics : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wording : XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX  Images depicting armed, masked tactical soldiers License listed : XXXX This presentation created strong intimidation and gave the impression of criminal enforcement authority, such as a bounty hunter or law enforcement agent.\n\nAt that time, my wife was approximately 5 weeks pregnant. \n\nWhen she discovered the card, she experienced severe XXXX  and extreme fear, believing that we might be targets of criminal enforcement action.\n\nWe called 911.\n\nLaw enforcement responded and specifically instructed us to : not open the door if the individual returned not call the number on the card not send any messages immediately call 911 if the individual returned After this incident, my wife began experiencing significant XXXX, ongoing fear, and a sense of insecurity inside our own home. \n\n\n\n2 ) Incident XXXX XX/XX/XXXX approximately XXXX XXXX  On XX/XX/XXXX, the same individual returned to my residence. \n\nI remained inside the residence and did not open the door. \n\nThere was no face-to-face contact. \n\nThe individual never visually observed me.\n\nI spoke through the closed door, stating in English : only a minute This was done solely to allow my wife time to call 911 again, as instructed by law enforcement.\n\nWe followed the police protocol exactly : not opening the door not calling the number not sending messages immediately calling 911 Despite this, the individual : inserted the documents into the door crevice did not wait for police to arrive immediately fled the scene Only after retrieving the documents did we discover that it was a civil summons.\n\nI did not accept service. \n\nI did not identify myself. \n\nI did not confirm my identity. \n\nI did not acknowledge service. \n\n\n\n3 ) False Certificate of Service filed on XX/XX/XXXX Despite never having visual contact with me, XXXX XXXX filed a sworn Certificate of Service claiming personal service. \n\nThis document includes a detailed physical description of me. \n\nBecause he never saw me, this description could not have been based on actual observation. \n\nThis Certificate of Service contains materially false sworn statements. \n\nXXXX XXXX and its attorneys relied on this false sworn document to establish jurisdiction. \n\n\n\n4 ) Documented medical impact Prenatal medical appointment on XX/XX/XXXX My wife attended her first prenatal medical appointment on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe incidents were reported to the obstetric physician. \n\nThe physician documented : panic anxiety fear psychological distress The physician : referred her to psychological care prescribed anxiety medication This documentation exists in official medical records. \n\n\n\n5 ) Formal communication with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX After obtaining contact information for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I formally contacted them and reported all events. \n\nI received a response confirming an investigation. \n\nXXXX XXXX confirmed they were reviewing the matter. \n\nI provided supporting evidence, including : incident descriptions medical impact photographic evidence complete explanation of events XXXX XXXX later responded stating they found no violations. \n\nDespite being formally notified of the false service and intimidation, XXXX XXXX : maintained its position continued relying on the false Certificate of Service did not correct the court record 6 ) Actions I have taken I have : filed an Answer filed a Motion to Quash filed a complaint with the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification contacted the XXXX XXXX Executive Office preserved evidence and I am prepared to provide full supporting documentation","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-02T16:57:15.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"84045","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19583235","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rausch Sturm LLP","date_received":"2026-02-18T08:38:54.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Description of the <em>Complaint</em> ( <em>Complete</em> Chronological <em>Narrative</em> ) I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> regarding false, deceptive, and intimidating representations made in connection with a civil debt collection lawsuit filed against me by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting through its legal representatives, including XXXX  XXXX XXXX and through its agents and contractors."]},"sort":[13.655256,"19583235"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18437451","_score":13.600055,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is my third complaint regarding Fifth Third Bank. Their XX/XX/XXXX response to my second complaint introduces new contradictions, continues to ignore my Regulation X requests, and reflects a pattern of providing false or misleading information to the CFPB while my family continues to suffer the consequences. \nFifth Third has completely failed to respond to my Requests for Information and Notices of Error submitted under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36. I sent email requests on XXXX XXXX XXXX, followed by a XXXX hard copy on XX/XX/XXXX, which was delivered and signed for by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Fifth Third was required to acknowledge receipt within XXXX business days and to provide a substantive response within XXXX business days of receipt. I received nothing. The only communications I received were their CFPB response letters containing shifting explanations, which do not constitute Regulation X compliance. I am entitled to written, itemized responses to each issue raised in my XXXX XXXX Fifth Thirds continued failure to provide those responses is an ongoing violation of federal law. \nIn its XX/XX/XXXX response, Fifth Third now claims it does not have signed XXXX documents in its system. This directly contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX letter Fifth Third attached to its first CFPB response confirming me as successor-in-interest. It also contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX phone call in which Fifth Thirds representative confirmed my XXXX status, apologized for delays, updated my contact information, and instructed me to submit a loss-mitigation application using my grandmothers information. \nIf Fifth Third confirmed me as successor-in-interest in XX/XX/XXXX, why was I never sent written confirmation as required by 12 C.F.R. 1024.30 ( d )? I did not learn of this confirmation until the XX/XX/XXXX phone call, more than XXXX years later, and only because I contacted the bank about an unrelated issue. Had Fifth Third sent the required written confirmation in XXXX, I could have prevented XXXX foreclosure attempts, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filings, severe credit damage, the medical crisis documented by my mental health provider on XX/XX/XXXX, and ultimately the loss of my grandmothers home. This entire catastrophe stems from Fifth Thirds failure to send one legally required letter. \nThis is an XXXX loan, which imposed additional obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and FHA XXXX XXXX XXXX. FHA policy requires servicers to identify successors-in-interest, engage them, and evaluate them for loss-mitigation options before foreclosure. Fifth Third violated all of these requirements. You had my contact information the entire time. After my grandmother died, Fifth Third instructed me to file probate, proving direct contact and knowledge of my involvement. I was notated on her account and handled matters on her behalf even before her death. You can verify this in your own account notes. You now claim I was confirmed successor-in-interest in XX/XX/XXXX, yet you never sent written confirmation and never proactively engaged me regarding loss-mitigation options. You confirmed my XXXX status, failed to notify me in writing, accepted my loss-mitigation application, and then sold the house while that application was under review. That is a direct violation of FHA servicing standards, not a technical oversight. \nFifth Thirds timeline continues to change. In its XX/XX/XXXX response, the bank claimed I submitted documents in XX/XX/XXXX and that the property was sold on XX/XX/XXXX. In its XX/XX/XXXX response, Fifth Third now claims it received my hardship letter on XX/XX/XXXX and that the property was sold on XX/XX/XXXX, admitting the earlier date was misinformation. Fifth Third has now admitted it lied about the sale date, yet its revised narrative remains inaccurate. \nThe actual facts are documented in the portal logs and chat transcripts I submitted with my second complaint. I submitted a complete loss-mitigation application through the portal on XX/XX/XXXX. When a representative later claimed it was not received, I was emailed a blank hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX and instructed to complete and submit it so the request could be opened. I followed those instructions and submitted the completed hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX. \nAfter I submitted the completed hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX, I retained access to the XXXX XXXX XXXX portal, but upload functionality and the ability to successfully complete new assistance submissions were blocked despite the application being treated as active and under review. This condition persisted through the XX/XX/XXXX sale and afterward, later appearing as a formal RFA Failed system entry on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThe sheriffs sale proceeded on XX/XX/XXXX while the application was still under review. \nPortal logs show the application was created on XX/XX/XXXX and reflect multiple document uploads. XXXX agent claimed via chat that no application existed on XX/XX/XXXX, directly contradicting the system records. Agents also stated the review period was approximately XXXX days. There were XXXX days between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. During XX/XX/XXXX, different agents gave contradictory statements about whether my application existed, what documents were required, and when it was received. I was repeatedly told to contact XXXX to stop the auction. My former probate attorney attempted to do so and could not reach them. \nDuring the XX/XX/XXXX call, Fifth Thirds representative specifically instructed me to submit the loss-mitigation application using my grandmothers information. I followed those instructions. Fifth Third can not now claim the application was improper when its own agent directed its submission that way. I also disclosed from the beginning that title remained in the XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX, that probate was ongoing, and that the probate judge directed the XXXX XXXX and me to resolve the mortgage issue. I was transparent throughout. \nFifth Third now claims my application was incomplete due to an allegedly expired drivers license, lack of insurance proof, and lack of proof of ownership in my name. My drivers license was not expired. Where is the written notice of missing items? Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ), an incomplete application requires written notice identifying specific deficiencies within XXXX days. I never received such a notice. There is no proof of mailing, no tracking, and no delivery confirmation. If Fifth Third claims it sent notices, prove it. You also failed to use the updated contact information recorded during the XX/XX/XXXX call. \nFifth Third now claims my application was incomplete due to title because the property was held in the estate rather than in my individual name. Cite the legal authority requiring title transfer for successor-in-interest loss-mitigation review. Regulation X defines successor-in-interest status independently of title ownership. I disclosed the probate status upfront. Your agents should have processed the application based on confirmed SII status. \nFifth Thirds XX/XX/XXXX response claims its system does not allow uploads or applications to be blocked. That statement is contradicted by the portals actual behavior and Fifth Thirds own activity logs. I retained access to the Loan Solution Center portal, but upload and submission functionality was blocked beginning after XX/XX/XXXX and continuing through and after the XX/XX/XXXX sale, later reflected as an RFA Failed system entry on XX/XX/XXXX. If Fifth Third disputes this, it should produce technical documentation and backend logs showing when upload and submission controls were XXXX on my account and why. \nI did everything by the book. I followed your agents instructions. I submitted what was requested. I disclosed everything upfront. I called repeatedly. I wrote letters. I sent XXXX mail. I filed proper Regulation X requests. I gave Fifth Third every opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, you stalled while my redemption period runs out on XX/XX/XXXX. While your executives were home with their families for XXXX, I was buried in legal filings trying to save my grandmothers home. You created this situation and then blamed me for not mitigating. That is offensive. The failure to mitigate is yours. \nMy grandmother was a Fifth Third customer since before XXXX, when it was XXXX XXXX Bank. This home was built new by ICCF for low-income families, and we are the only family who has ever lived here. I stayed behind to care for my grandmother when others left. XXXX XXXX documented that without my caregiving, she would have required XXXXXXXX XXXX placement. Had Fifth Third sent the required XXXX confirmation in XXXX, none of this would have happened. \nFifth Third is pursuing corporate mergers while failing to meet basic servicing obligations. You have resources for expansion but not for compliance. As my grandmother used to say, it starts at the head and spreads abroad. Your agents either do not know the rules or do not care. \nExplain how this is fair. Explain how you sleep at night treating long-term customers this way. You had the ability to prevent this by sending XXXX required letter. You chose not to. I am filing complaints with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Michigan Attorney General, and XXXX. I am making this public. I will not stop until Fifth Third takes responsibility. \nI demand written responses to each item in my XX/XX/XXXX XXXX within XXXX business days, production of proof of mailing for any alleged notices, proof of any letters you claim I signed, complete loss-mitigation workflow logs for XXXX XXXX XXXX and technical documentation regarding portal functionality and account lock status. Correct the record and admit the actual timeline. Identify who provided false information to the CFPB and what corrective action is being taken. \nI am not asking CFPB to decide my state court case. I am asking CFPB to require Fifth Third to comply with federal servicing law and to provide accurate, consistent information. \nFifth Thirds response is filled with polished language about first-class customer service and transparency, yet the bank refuses to produce the underlying records. If Fifth Third stands by its narrative, it should produce the evidence. \nI specifically demand production of the XX/XX/XXXX call audio at approximately XXXX XXXX  XXXX, including the call-detail record, interaction ID, agent identification, department, call duration, and all contemporaneous account notes. That call is dispositive. Fifth Third can not claim customer-service excellence while refusing to produce it. \nI also demand production of complete backend servicing and workflow data tied to my loss-mitigation submissions for XXXX XXXX XXXX. If Fifth Third claims documentation was missing, produce the system records proving those requests were actually made at the time. \nIgnoring Regulation X requests for months is not a customer-service issue. It is a compliance failure. \nEnough with the scripted language. This is about records. Fifth Third has had months and has offered nothing but revised timelines and excuses. That ends now. \nEnough with the XXXX. Enough with the shifting timelines and post-hoc explanations. If Fifth Third stands by its actions, it should produce the audio, the logs, and the workflow data and let the facts speak. Accountability begins when the talking stops and the evidence is produced.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T03:23:28.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"49503","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18437451","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-01-03T03:08:59.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The actual facts are documented in the portal logs and chat transcripts I submitted with my second <em>complaint</em>. I submitted a <em>complete</em> loss-mitigation application through the portal on XX/XX/XXXX. When a representative later <em>claimed</em> it was not received, I was emailed a blank hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX and instructed to <em>complete</em> and submit it so the request could be opened. I followed those instructions and submitted the <em>completed</em> hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[13.600055,"18437451"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15263630","_score":13.55534,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Company Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Related Company : Mosaic ( loan servicer ) Loan Number : Mosaic loan number can be given if required Complaint Narrative : I signed a solar installation pre-approval agreement with XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, paired with financing through Mosaic. Before any inspection, scheduling, or installation occurred, I requested immediate cancellation of the project. \n\nPattern of Delay : XXXX XXXX confirmed they received my cancellation request but refused to provide a cancellation invoice to Mosaic. They repeatedly claims my cancellation is with their internal team and that nothing can be done because of XXXX bankruptcy hold. Mosaic, in turn, says they can not cancel because XXXX XXXX has not sent them a cancellation invoice. This back-and-forth has continued for months, with both companies using the same excuses to delay the process. \n\nTimeline : Mosaic / XXXX XXXX Loan Cancellation Timeline XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Received Mosaic prequalification email during XXXX XXXX welcome call. \nConfirmed multiple times with both companies : loan would not be activated until project start. \n\nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Received Mosaic email stating loan approved and agreement final. \nMosaic email instructed : project installation Mosaic verifies disbursement to contractor. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX contacted to schedule site inspection. \nI declined inspection and requested immediate project cancellation ( Ticket # XXXX ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Mosaic disbursed {$22000.00} to XXXX XXXX ( Advance to Increase Balance in Mosaic portal ) Disbursement occurred after cancellation request and before estimated loan start date ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX  ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Monthly calls to XXXX XXXX. Response : internal team processing loan cancellation. No completion date provided. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX portal shows project cancellation completed. \nMosaic replied to my XX/XX/XXXX request with Post Funded Cancellation Created. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX & XXXX, XXXX Mosaic emails : confirmed they contacted XXXX XXXX for cancellation confirmation; advised me to follow up directly with XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Mosaic email : stated XXXX XXXX denied cancellation; instructed me to have XXXX XXXX contact Mosaic directly. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX email ( XXXX XXXX ) : confirmed request submitted to internal team to send cancellation notice to Mosaic. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX email ( XXXX XXXX ) : no estimated completion time ; internal team must meet guidelines before sending cancellation to Mosaic. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX Ongoing delays ; XXXX XXXX still claims internal team processing. \nMosaic bankruptcy filed XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Filed Objection Post Auction, Objection to Plan of Reorganization, and Proof of Claim with bankruptcy court. \nOpt-Out of third-party release election submitted ; PDF confirmation received Present Loan still active despite no equipment or service received, solar project cancelled before site inspection in XXXX. \n\nThis delay risks harming my credit and running down important legal deadlines. I never received any equipment or service, yet Mosaic still shows an active loan in my name. Similar cases have been reported publicly, including XXXX XXXX coverage of a Texas woman who faced the same problem with these two companies. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-13T17:03:15.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"30097","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15263630","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Solar Mosaic LLC","date_received":"2025-08-13T16:31:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Delays with the closing process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX portal shows project cancellation <em>completed</em>. \nMosaic replied to my XX/XX/XXXX request with Post Funded Cancellation Created. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX & XXXX, XXXX Mosaic emails : confirmed they <em>contacted</em> XXXX XXXX for cancellation confirmation; advised me to follow up directly with XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Mosaic email : stated XXXX XXXX denied cancellation; instructed me to <em>have</em> XXXX XXXX <em>contact</em> Mosaic directly."]},"sort":[13.55534,"15263630"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4304410","_score":13.426157,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I initially started this process on Wednesday, XX/XX/2021, however due to circumstances, I was able to complete this process today, XX/XX/2021. \n\nMy Experiences with PNC XXXX XXXX XXXX My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I have had a bank account with PNC for years. The last four numbers of the account number is XXXX. \n\nThere are several issues and concerns. I am writing about most significant ones in this process. \n\n1. PNC does not process and post transactions in a transparent way, that can be verified by me, the consumer.\n\n2. PNC punitively delays processing and posting transactions in my account.\n\n3. PNCs policy of a supervisor or representative returning a phone call in 24 to 48 hours is insane! When a customer has a serious issue with regards to bank activity, the bank should make yourself available to speak to the customer immediately.\n\n4. PNC delays responding to my concerns via the callback within 24-48 hour narrative.\n\nHow would bank officials like their checks to be delayed posted and or processed for 24 to 49 hours after the official expressed a concern about the check amount? \n\nI have experienced and documented PNC deliberately and intentionally not providing full identification and disclosure of, delaying processing and posting of transactions within my account, money taken out of my account fraudulently by PNC Bank, and PNC Bank doing punitive acts of denying me access to an online banking account that I had with PNC. \n\nThat PNC closed my online banking account and then requested and required that I give them total access to my phone, all my data, photos, contacts,? To reopen the account is horrific. \n\nAfter I denied PNC access, they denied me access to online banking. They then flipped the script to appear as though they did not deny me access to on line banking. \n\nTheir narrative was that I could access online banking, IF I agreed to allow them unlimited access to my phone, data, contacts, etc. I refused. Therefore I do no longer have online banking service with PNC. \n\nWith the only access I have to my account being voice mail, and recorded phone calls, I experience PNC punitively delaying processing and posting transactions in my account. \n\nDelay of processing and posting to my account on several occasions and of late, has become the norm with PNC. PNC Bank, delaying processing and posting transactions in the account, and their gangster bankster policy, narratives and practices MUST STOP! \n\nI stopped using PNC online banking several years ago because without my direct knowledge and or consent, PNC closed my on line banking account. \n\nWhen PNC offered to reopen online banking access to me, they had a list of demands of me, for them to reopen the account that they closed. \n\nIncluded in their demands was that I give them unlimited access to my phone, all my documents, data, photos, etc. \n\nWhen I refused to grant them access they requested, they refused to allow me to reopen my online banking account that they had closed. \n\nI opened an account with XXXX Bank and have online banking service with XXXX Bank. \n\nIt more appears that PNC and XXXX Bank are collaborating, coordinating, communicating, and working together and are accomplices in what amounts to manipulation and control of my finances, access to my finances and manipulation of processing and posting transactions. \n\nOn Monday XXXX XXXX, XXXX online banking that I have with XXXX Bank, I transferred {$35.00} and {$100.00} from PNC to XXXX Bank. \n\nNeither PNC nor XXXX Bank posted those transaction ( to me ) as processed until Tuesday, XX/XX/2021. XXXX Bank posted the transaction, PNC had not. \n\nXXXX Bank posted the transaction in my online banking account on Tuesday. \n\nPNC had not posted nor processed the transaction via their voicemail system. \n\nPNC did not post nor process those transactions until, Wednesday, XX/XX/2021. XXXX days after the transaction at the very moment when I transferred the funds FROM XXXX Bank, today Wednesday XXXX XXXX. \n\nI called PNC today, Wednesday XX/XX/2021 and spoke with XXXX. After I expressed my concerns the call was abruptly disconnected. \n\nI called a second time and spoke with XXXX. She stated that PNC doesnt process transactions until they are given a receipt. \n\nI called PNC a third time and Niar, refused to allow me to immediately speak with a supervisor, stating that she would, Escalate a complaint and a representative would contact me in 24 to 48 hours. \n\nPNCs do dirt and delay speaking about it tactic has been recorded and documented by other PNC customers. I experience their tactics. \n\nI have repeatedly called PNC and articulated my concerns with their tactics on recorded phone calls. \n\nThey think and have written their policy that if they record the phone call, they talk sugar honey Ive tea, If and only if they record the call. If they are informed that the call is recorded, they immediately hang up the call and refuse to speak their sugar honey ice tea narratives NOTE : PNC XXXXecords calls for quality assurance and training, however If informed that the call is recorded, PNC representatives immediately hang up the phone, so that their rudeness, crudeness and shrewdness is not documented to prove the exact nature of conversations that a customer has with PNC. \n\nI have repeatedly told PNC that I do not complain. \n\nTheir system identifies expressions of experiences to PNC as complaints. \n\nI have given PNC many opportunity to self correct, they refuse. \n\nAfter, having expressed to PNC my refusal to allow them car blanc access to my phone, data, contacts, etc., PNC voice mail system, seldom fully identifies all merchants, and their system delays processing and posting transactions that cause and or potentially cause my account to go into overdraft status and or in some sort of punitive way, my account gets hit. \n\nWhen I call PNC and ask PNC to identify merchants, their response is that they will escalate a complaint to which, to this very day, they have done nothing. \n\nAt one point in time they did identify every merchant. They stopped and now, their system XXXX banksters. \n\nThey still do not fully identify each and every merchant via their voice banking system. \n\nTheir lack of transparency with regards to what they are doing, has been documented in other complaints lodged against them. \n\nI have waited for years for PNC to self correct. \n\nNote that XXXX  judgment is upon the earth, XXXX  judge and exact justice! \n\nI am requesting that an independent investigation of my specific PNC account, and other PNC accounts throughout their system of ALL XXXX and XXXX  people, be conducted. \n\nI am requesting that PNC immediately cease and desist from delaying posting and processing transactions in my account. \n\nI am requesting FRB, FDIC and the Securities Exchange Commission to investigate my claims and monitor my account with PNC. \n\nI am requesting that PNC return every penny that PNC has falsely taken out of my account over the years y that I have had the account with PNC. \n\nI am requesting PNC to immediately respond to my concerns, given that PNC online banking services are not accessible to me. \n\nIn the past, PNC regularly took money out of my account with fake transactions that I did not authorize nor agree to. \n\nAt the beginning of that time I was in XXXX, Delaware and had been hospitalized. There was thousands of dollars taken out of my account by PNC. \n\nAt this point, I have, do and will continue to document my experiences with PNC. \n\nAfter giving PNC opportunity to self correct, I have made known to my XXXX XXXX and now am doing so to you, what my experiences have been and have continued to be. \n\nThe majority of people I see, employed by PNC have been white peoples. Most of whom, are system soldiers, who act privileged and or disrespectful in a nice/nasty way. \n\nOn the same day, XX/XX/2021, that I had the rude experience with the three XXXX PNC phone center representatives, I went to a drive thru and made a request to a XXXX male teller. \n\nHe apparently gave the task to the XXXX  female to process my transactions, without saying a word to me, that he was not doing the transaction. \n\nI sat and watched every car that was in the drive thru, get served and leave as I waited for the transactions I requested to be processed. That happened right after I had called and spoken to the three call center reps, who recorded, and post calls, complaints, etc. in their records. \n\nI am making known my experiences and concerns to the banking regulatory authorities to investigate and settle my claims. \n\nBecause XXXX  is my XXXX XXXX, I do not fight men and people. XXXX fights all my battles and XXXX  REIGNS! YHWH does! \n\nPNC, has been given opportunity to self correct. \n\nWith XXXX  judgment upon the earth, it is wise for PNC to self correct. Because the toxic social, economic, and political is being exposed and ridden from the earth, as XXXX XXXX come, before XXXX  Judgment and justice is exacted against PNC, All banking, and regulatory agencies are given opportunity to ensured our are doing what is right, good and true as you investigate, judge and exact justice. \n\nAll will and are being judged and justice is served! \n\nXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Reigns!","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-16T20:23:19.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4304410","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2021-04-16T19:58:24.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their system identifies expressions of experiences to PNC as <em>complaints</em>. \n\nI <em>have</em> given PNC many opportunity to self correct, they refuse."]},"sort":[13.426157,"4304410"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22644131","_score":13.312633,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXXFinancial Institution:Bank: Citibank, N.A.Account Type: Credit Card (Citi XXXX XXXXAccount Number Ending In: XXXXSubject: Violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)  Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation, Improper Fee and Interest EscalationComplaint Narrative:I am filing this formal complaint against Citibank for systematic billing errors, failure to conduct a meaningful dispute investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), and predatory calculation of interest rates and late fees following a merchant dispute.On an ongoing basis, an erroneous charge of XXXX  from XXXX  was applied to my account. I formally disputed this charge on the grounds of fraud/unauthorized billing. I explicitly requested that the merchant produce an actual itemized bill, receipt, or a signed service agreement proving I authorized or used these services. XXXX  failed to produce this.Citibank paused the charge for approximately two months. However, upon receiving automated, non-itemized metadata from XXXX, Citibank summarily denied my chargeback within a single day. No human review was conducted. I immediately contacted Citibank to request a secondary review and explanation. I withheld payment for exactly 24 hours while waiting for a supervisor to confirm that a re-investigation would take place. I then made a good-faith payment of the minimum amount due.Despite my good-faith payment and the verbal assurance that the matter was being reviewed, Citibank issued a denial letter just three days later, proving the review was rejected almost instantly. Because of this single-day delay caused by their confusing dispute process, Citibank hit my account with a XXXX  late fee in XXXX.Furthermore, Citibank's subsequent billing mathematics are punitive and non-transparent:In XXXX, despite making a $XXXX payment, I was hit with an additional XXXX late fee.Citibank began splitting my interest rates between 27.49% and a penalty rate of 28.49%.In May, despite making zero new purchases and paying down the total balance by XXXX, Citibank arbitrarily shifted my higher-interest balance (at 28.49%) from XXXX up to XXXX. They reduced my lower-interest balance (at 27.49%) from XXXX to XXXX.Citibank is manipulating payment allocations and utilizing aggressive Average Daily Balance (ADB) calculations to penalize me for trying to understand an unverified merchant charge. They have failed to provide the merchant verification required to validate a disputed debt.Requested Resolution:A complete merchant audit forcing XXXX  to supply an actual, signed receipt or service agreement for the XXXX charge, or a permanent reversal of the charge.Complete removal and refund of all dispute-related late fees (XXXX total).A formal correction and recalculation of the XXXX  and XXXX  interest charges, moving all balances back to the standard 27.49% rate.  CFPB won't allow me to alter my phone number unless I call between XXXX  and XXXX min through Friday for whatever reason this seems like an arbitrary step meant to deter a complaint or to claim that the incorrect information is on file while allowing me to alter other information prior to submitting such a report.  This makes no sense my new phone number is XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-28T03:11:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"55412","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22644131","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-05-28T02:53:00.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They <em>have</em> failed to provide the merchant verification required to validate a disputed debt.Requested Resolution:A <em>complete</em> merchant audit forcing XXXX  to supply an actual, signed receipt or service agreement for the XXXX charge, or a permanent reversal of the charge.<em>Complete</em> removal and refund of all dispute-related late fees (XXXX total).A formal correction and recalculation of the XXXX  and XXXX  interest charges, moving all balances back to the standard 27.49% rate."]},"sort":[13.312633,"22644131"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6059076","_score":12.813982,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This is a follow up to the complaint made to Navient on XX/XX/2022 and answered XX/XX/2022 by Navient complaint number XXXX. In the response Navient sent three documents that show a contract with Sallie Mae. I am aware of a contract with Sallie Mae but unaware of any contract between myself and Navient. Two Formal Affidavit of TRUTH was sent to Navient via Certified Mail # XXXX ; XXXX dated XX/XX/2022, and received on XX/XX/2022. The Affidavits of Truth laid out the identity of the original creditor, demanded the proof by copies of the original lawful contract signed by both parties in wet ink, and provided validation of the alleged debt ( actual accounting ). These letters were sent via Certified Mail Respondent was given thirty ( 30 ) days from day of receiving the Affidavit of Truth to provide proofs of claim, point for point ; however, Respondent chose to send a contract signed by another company. This lack of contractual evidence makes the Affidavit of Truth to be held as TRUE. Respondent has agreed and stipulated to the facts and agreed that the undersigned Secured Party can only discharge said debt via the remedy provided by Congress via HJR-192 with a Bill of Exchange or other appropriate commercial paper. \n\n\nConditional Acceptance Formal Conditional Acceptance was sent to Navient as a result of their failure to prove the Affidavit of Truth as false. Said Conditional Acceptance was sent via Certified Mail # XXXX dated XX/XX/2022, and received on XX/XX/2022. \n\nNON-RESPONSE AND FAILURE TO CURE FAULT After 10 days of receipt by Navient, showing no record of response to items listed in my Conditional Acceptance sent via Certified Mail # XXXX dated XX/XX/2022, and received on XX/XX/2022. \n\nNOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CONSENT TO JUDGMENT Whereas, for the reason of Navients failure to cure and honor, places Navient in Default. For the course of dealing, set forth herein, with Navient failure, refusal, or neglect in the presentment of a verified response to the Validation of Debt, Affidavit of Truth, and Conditional Acceptance constitutes the Respondents failure to perform in good faith and the Respondents acquiescence and tacit agreement with all terms, conditions and stipulations set forth within the Notice of Default and Consent to Judgment, Validation of Debt, and Conditional Acceptance As Navient has stated in its response back it is reporting these late payments to the credit agencies during this time. According to 15 USC 1692g a debt can not be collected on while it is being disputed, therefore all reporting by this company has been fraudulent and is a violation of the FCRA. Stating that Navient by its own account purchased a contract in order to collect on a debt not owed, this is a form of identity theft. In the origninal documents sent to Navient was a cease and desist notice. By their own account in its last response they are ignoring that notice. 15 USC 1692c and d would considered these to be abusive and harassment. \n\nBelow is the response back from Navient and attached are all documents sent by Navient in its response minus its proof to collect a debt in the State Of Georgia. \n\nThank you for reaching out to the CFPB with your concerns regarding your student loan account. Navient currently services your Federal Family Education Loan Program ( FFELP ) Consolidation Loan and your Private Consolidation Loan. We have attached copies of Promissory Notes for you to review, which serve as validation of the loans. By signing the Promissory Notes, you agreed to the terms and conditions of the loans. If the primary borrower or cosigner fail to make payments, Navient must resolve the problem either by collecting payment immediately or by arranging an alternate payment schedule. To do this, we perform a progression of activities to collect delinquent payments and we work to resolve delinquencies by using all legal means available. As a matter of explanation, our calls are intended to help customers avoid Late Fees and resolve delinquency and are not intended to harass. When a payment is not received by the due date, we attempt to resolve the delinquency by making contact through phone calls and letters, intended to remind customers of their obligation, help them avoid negative consequences of missing a payment, and inform them of the options available to help them fulfill their obligation. If we lose contact with you, well use the addresses and telephone numbers listed on the loan application to contact your references to obtain your location information. Because due diligence activities are required by federal law, you may continue to receive calls and letters. Furthermore, when there is a conflict between federal laws and state laws, we must follow the federal requirement. However, we strive to follow applicable state laws which are not expressly preempted by federal law and not otherwise in conflict with federal law. We have updated your cell phone numbers to prevent any future automated calls from being placed to you. Additionally, we have attached a copy of a letter sent to us by the Secretary of State of Georgia who states, Navient XXXX is authorized to transact business in the state of Georgia. We know financial challenges can come up unexpectedly, and we want to help you stay on track with your repayment schedule. Making payments on time is always the best way to protect your credit score, avoid Late Fees, and stop collection letters and calls. If youre having difficulty making your current payments, give us a call to learn about your options. Navient reports student loans individually to the consumer reporting agencies. This reporting is consistent with industry standards. If you have an account with multiple loans, youll see each loan reported with its own tradeline. Simply put, a tradeline is a descriptive summary of a particular loans history and status. Tradeline information can include the name of the company reporting the account, account open date, account status ( open, closed, past due, etc. ), balance owed, payment history and narratives. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires lenders and servicers, such as Navient, who report information to the consumer reporting agencies to do so with accuracy. Therefore, we can not remove accurate information from your credit report. We will update your credit report to reflect your disputed loans with the following comment : FCRA direct dispute investigation completed consumer disagrees with the results of the data furnishers investigation. Because you disputed the account information we reported to the consumer reporting agencies, we are required to inform them of your dispute when we continue to send them updates. When we do this, the consumer reporting agencies will place the above narrative on your credit report to reflect that your account was previously disputed. Please note that the update pertains only to each open loan noted in your dispute. If you wish to have this narrative removed from your credit report, call or write us at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX PA, XXXX. Please include your name, address, and account/loan number ( s ), and indicate that you wish to have the dispute narrative removed from your credit report. \nATTACHMENTS XXXX Attachment XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX Attachment XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX ) XXXX Attachment XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX Attachment XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX ) Georgia License","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-06T17:33:59.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Private student loan debt","zip_code":"31909","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6059076","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2022-10-06T17:00:53.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We will update your credit report to reflect your disputed loans with the following comment : FCRA direct dispute investigation <em>completed</em> consumer disagrees with the results of the data furnishers investigation. <em>Because</em> you disputed the account information we reported to the consumer reporting agencies, we are required to inform them of your dispute when we continue to send them updates."]},"sort":[12.813982,"6059076"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18450221","_score":12.2348795,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative ( XXXX & XXXX to Submit ) I am filing a complaint regarding Sams Club Travel ( Members Deals ) and Synchrony Bank for their mishandling of a hotel reservation dispute involving false advertising, misrepresentation, and failure to conduct a proper investigation. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I booked a hotel stay at the XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Illinois, through XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX website advertised the room as a Double King room. During the booking call, the representative placed me on hold to confirm with a XXXX that the hotel offered a Double King room. Based on that confirmation, I completed the booking. \nImmediately after the call, I contacted the XXXX XXXX directly to verify the room type. The hotel informed me that no such room type exists at that location and that they have never offered a Double King room. Within XXXX minutes of booking, I called XXXX XXXX XXXX back to cancel the reservation due to the false and misleading information provided by their representative and their website. I was told the reservation was cancelled and was given a CARES cancellation number. I also clearly stated that the cancellation was due to false advertising. \nI have email documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX showing the room type they advertised, which does not match the actual offerings of the XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Illinois. \nDespite cancelling immediately, Sams Club Travel has not resolved this matter. I have now filed XXXX disputes with Synchrony Bank ( the issuer of the XXXX XXXX credit card ). Each time, Sams Club Travel has submitted documents to Synchrony that are so small and illegible that neither Synchrony Bank nor I can read them. These unreadable documents are being used as justification to deny or delay my dispute. \nIn my most recent dispute, I specifically requested that Synchrony Bank obtain the recorded phone call between me ; the Sams Club Travel representative, as this call will clearly show the misrepresentation about the room type. I also requested readable documentation. To date, I have received no readable documents, no explanation, and no meaningful update on the investigation. \nI am requesting CFPB assistance because : Sams Club Travel engaged in false advertising and misrepresentation. \nI cancelled the reservation within XXXX minutes, yet the charge remains. \nSams Club Travel continues submitting unreadable documents to Synchrony Bank. \nSynchrony Bank has failed to conduct a proper investigation and has not obtained the call recording I requested. \nI have not received any clear communication or resolution from either party. \nI am seeking a full refund and a thorough investigation into the false advertising and unreadable documentation used to deny my dispute. \n\nI contacted Sam 's Club Travel Members Deals on XX/XX/year>, and a representative took the cancellation over the phone. The representative provided confirmation in writing to me on XX/XX/year>, which is the first correspondence from XXXXam 's Club Travel Members Deals. \nI received several email messages ( XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>, with an updated ( I can provide all email communication ). After Sam 's Club Travel refused to refund me my additional {$730.00}. I then went to Synchrony Bank to dispute the charge with the credit card company. I was refunded {$500.00}, but the {$730.00} is what Sam 's Club TraveXXXX is refusing to give me back. I have disputed the total charge of {$1200.00} on XX/XX/year>, claim # XXXX XXXX dispute with Synchrony Bank on XX/XX/year>, claim # XXXX. Synchrony is still accepting the illegible documents from Sam 's Club Travel. \n\nPlease help to resolve this issue with these XXXX companies, in which I feel that they are giving me the run around in hopes that I get tired and give up. I refuse to give in and let Sam 's Club TraveXXXX charge me for the XXXX rooms, and I cancelled the reservation due to their false advertising of the room.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-13T12:32:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"72113","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18450221","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-01-04T03:40:42.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( XXXX & XXXX to Submit ) I am filing a <em>complaint</em> regarding Sams Club Travel ( Members Deals ) and Synchrony Bank for their mishandling of a hotel reservation dispute involving false advertising, misrepresentation, and failure to conduct a proper investigation. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I booked a hotel stay at the XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Illinois, through XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX website advertised the room as a Double King room."]},"sort":[12.2348795,"18450221"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18922990","_score":12.021546,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally appeal the denial of Claim regarding an unauthorized XXXX transfer in the amount of {$3200.00}. This appeal includes new material evidence that was not reviewed during the initial determination and warrants a theft-based re-evaluation. \n\nOn Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX my mobile phone was stolen. Immediately following the theft, attempts to call the device went directly to voicemail and it was no longer locatable, confirming that I was no longer in physical possession of the phone. \n\nAt approximately XXXX XXXX  after arriving home and knowing that my phone had been stolen, I took immediate protective action by disabling my Wells Fargo debit card linked to my checking account. After securing my account to the extent I reasonably could at that time, I went to sleep for the night. Despite this action, at XXXXXXXX XXXX, an outgoing XXXX transfer of {$3200.00} was initiated from my Wells Fargo account. \n\nAt the time of the transfer, I was not in possession of my phone, did not authorize, did not intend, and did not initiate the XXXX payment. I did not approve the transfer in any manner and did not receive or benefit from the funds. \nAuthorization requires both intent and possession. Because my device had been stolen prior to the transaction, I lacked possession, and because I did not approve or initiate the payment, I lacked intent. A stolen device using stored credentials does not constitute authorization. \n\nThis transaction is entirely inconsistent with my account history. I have never initiated an outgoing XXXX transfer from my account. The disputed transaction is the only outgoing XXXX payment on record and is highly unusual in both amount and timing. My last legitimate XXXX activity occurred on XX/XX/XXXX and did not involve sending funds. \n\nAdditionally, no real-time push notification or urgent alert was received by me or by the joint account holder at the time of the transfer. An email notification was later received but did not provide immediate or time-sensitive notice of the transaction occurring at XXXXXXXX XXXX \n\nThe XXXX transfer was sent to an individual entirely unknown to me. I do not recognize the recipient and have no prior relationship, communication, or transaction history with this individual. The transaction record reflects an identifiable recipient name and associated XXXX address, which I am prepared to provide upon request to assist with Wells Fargos review and any recovery efforts. \n\nUpon discovering the unauthorized activity at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX I contacted Wells Fargo at XXXXXXXX XXXX  to report the transaction and take further protective action. \n\nA police report has been filed documenting the theft of my phone and the subsequent unauthorized financial activity : Police Report Number : XXXX Police Department Attached to this appeal are my sworn affidavit, proof of loss, and the police report, all of which establish that the XXXX transfer occurred after the theft of my device, without my knowledge, consent, possession, or intent. This transaction should be reviewed as a theft-based unauthorized XXXX transfer XXXX \n\n\nIf Wells Fargo maintains its denial after review of this new evidence, I will immediately escalate the matter through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and pursue all available remedies to address the improper classification of this theft-based transaction. \n\nMore Information : Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding Wells Fargos denial of a theft-based unauthorized XXXX transfer from my checking account in the amount of {$3200.00} ( Claim # XXXX ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX my mobile phone was stolen. I was no longer in physical possession of the device. At approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX  after arriving home and knowing my phone had been stolen, I took immediate protective action by disabling my Wells Fargo debit card linked to my checking account. Despite this action, at XXXXXXXX XXXX an outgoing XXXX transfer of {$3200.00} was initiated from my account. \n\nI did not authorize, intend, or initiate this transfer, did not have possession of my phone at the time, and did not receive or benefit from the funds. Authorization requires both intent and possession. A stolen device using stored credentials does not constitute authorization. \n\nThis transaction is entirely inconsistent with my account history. I have never initiated an outgoing XXXX transfer prior to this incident. The recipient was an individual unknown to me. \n\nI filed a police report documenting the theft and completed a sworn affidavit and proof of loss. I uploaded all supporting documentation on XX/XX/year> at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX Wells Fargo denied my claim and later confirmed that the Claims Assistance XXXX did not receive or review the supporting documents before closing the claim. \n\nIn its denial letter dated XX/XX/year>, Wells Fargo stated that the activity occurred through a secure online banking session by you or someone who had your authority and closed the claim without evaluating theft, lack of possession, lack of intent, out-of-pattern behavior, or the submitted documentation. \n\nWells Fargo misclassified a theft-based unauthorized transaction as authorized solely based on device/session access and denied the claim without reviewing material evidence. \n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance to require Wells Fargo to properly review the submitted documentation, reclassify the transaction as unauthorized, and reimburse the disputed amount.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-22T15:33:54.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"19115","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18922990","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-01-22T15:15:58.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["More Information : <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am filing this <em>complaint</em> regarding Wells Fargos denial of a theft-based unauthorized XXXX transfer from my checking account in the amount of {$3200.00} ( <em>Claim</em> # XXXX ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX my mobile phone was stolen. I was no longer in physical possession of the device."]},"sort":[12.021546,"18922990"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4153140","_score":11.858014,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Robinhood Complaint Narrative This is a narrative of my interaction with the investment firm Robinhood beginning on XX/XX/2021. \n\nOn XX/XX/2021 I went online to the Robinhood website XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX  to open an account for the purpose of making modest investments in U.S. securities. I filled out the necessary application and began research into stocks I was interested in purchasing. On XX/XX/2021 I linked my bank account ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to my Robinhood account and ordered that {$5000.00} be deposited into that account to fund Stock purchases. My bank account was debited on XX/XX/XXXX, but Robinhood didnt finish verifying and activating my account for purchases until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/2021 I logged into my Robinhood account and placed an order to buy {$2000.00} of XXXX XXXX. I received a confusing notice that the transaction had been completed but my purchasing power was now {$1000.00}. What happened to the {$5000.00} that I deposited into my account? I called Robinhood customer service and spoke to an agent. \n\nThe agent told me that the XXXX transaction could NOT be completed because my account had not been properly verified and he offered to remedy that. He also said that {$1000.00} is the standard purchasing power given to customers as a courtesy before they fund their account. He said he could resolve the apparent problem but would need my permission to give him remote control over my computer. I agreed to that and our computers were linked. \n\nFor over an hour we worked on the problem. He needed me to photograph my California Drivers license and send it to him, which I did. He took me through many more steps but was unable to get my account verified to permit the purchase. Finally I became very frustrated and told him I wanted him to close my Robinhood account and refund all funds in it. \n\nThe agent explained that to send me the money Robinhood would need to use a third-party entity named XXXX and they would require additional verification of my identity which he would guide me through. ( He still had control of my computer at that time. ) We agreed that the money would be deposited in a checking account that I have with XXXX XXXX \n\nWe went through a complicated series of steps to do that and I then received a notice from the bank that the transaction could not be completed. The agent suggested trying a different account and I selected the XXXX XXXX account associated with my XXXX checking account. \n\nThe agent also said Robinhood would need to send the money in a series of small transactions because of limits on the amount of money that could be processed. He suggested trying {$1000.00}. The funds would come from my Robinhood account and XXXX would use the money to purchase XXXX and deposit that into my debit card. \n\nWhen we attempted that, XXXX blocked the transfer as a potential fraud. I called XXXX and had them lift the block. I also told XXXX that we would be sending at least two more transfer requests from XXXX and to approve them when submitted. We resubmitted the transfer and it appeared to go through OK. \n\nNext, we tried to transfer {$2000.00} by the same method. This time XXXX blocked the transaction claiming to need further verification of my identity. This consisted of me making a video recording of myself holding the card and reading text that they required me to speak out loud. Here is the text : Hello XXXX. In this payment I am buying XXXX in the amount of {$1500.00}. I know that after I complete my payment it can not be refunded or reversed. I am aware that scammers sometimes present themselves as large respectable companies, agencies, or service providers, in order to trick victims into sending crypto currency to them. I understand that if I send crypto currency directly to an account I do not control I will lose the money I paid. My computer is not being remotely controlled and no-one is guiding me through this payment. \n\nAt that moment my computer WAS being remotely controlled and an agent of Robinhood, WAS on the phone guiding me. \n\nI was shocked that I was being told to speak a blatant lie, on video no less, and I told the Robinhood agent that I absolutely would not comply under any circumstances. The agent insisted that this was their required procedure and they couldnt liquidate my account unless I agreed to submit the recording. \n\nI asked to speak to a supervisor and was transferred. The supervisor repeated XXXX insistence on the video. I told the supervisor I would not comply and if Robinhood couldnt find someone with authority to bypass this step and send me the money I would hang up and file a formal complaint with the SEC. \n\nThe supervisor said there was nothing he could do. I ended the call and contacted the SEC to file the complaint. I also went online to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to seek assistance. \n\nBy this time I had been on the phone for over 3 hours and was unsure what, if any, transactions had been actually executed. I called XXXX to check the status of my debit account and ask what transactions had been completed. XXXX reported the following activity on my account : 1. Two DEBITS for {$1000.00} each by XXXX that are pending and will post at the end of the day to the checking account associated with my debit card. \n2. One debit for {$1500.00} that had been cancelled. \nXXXX. One debit for {$1900.00} that had been canceled. \n\nI was transferred to the XXXX XXXX department and filed a dispute claim for both the pending debit transactions. XXXX said they couldnt block the two transactions but if they posted, XXXX would automatically issue temporary deposits to counter the funds taken from my account. They would then begin researching my dispute. \n\nAt XXXX XXXX I logged into my Robinhood account and this is what I found : 1. My portfolio showed a balance of {$5000.00} 2. My purchasing power was {$1000.00} 3. Robinhood had executed two purchases of XXXX XXXX for {$2000.00} each from my account. \n4. According to Robinhood I own XXXX shares of XXXX stock. \n5. The market value of those shares is {$4000.00}. \n\nThis is all SO wrong. I did initiate ONE order to buy {$2000.00} of PowerShares ( not two ) but was told by the XXXX agent that the transaction had not been executed. I was told that {$1000.00} had been transferred from my Robinhood account and deposited to my debit card. Instead, XXXX had DEBITED that card for a total of {$2000.00} and the money would be taken from the checking account associated with the debit card. \n\nIm a new investor and not very familiar with securities transactions. But this whole interaction has been confused and did not result in my intended investments. Asking me to tell a lie on video tape has GOT to be a violation of some sort. \n\nWhat I want is very simple : for Robinhood to liquidate all the assets in my account, close that account, and send me the money. \n\nCan you please help me? \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-03-05T22:40:02.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"91360","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4153140","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.","date_received":"2021-02-20T00:14:45.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Robinhood <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> This is a <em>narrative</em> of my interaction with the investment firm Robinhood beginning on XX/XX/2021. \n\nOn XX/XX/2021 I went online to the Robinhood website XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX  to open an account for the purpose of making modest investments in U.S. securities. I filled out the necessary application and began research into stocks I was interested in purchasing."]},"sort":[11.858014,"4153140"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4785521","_score":11.596588,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, we solicited a modification from Selene Finance, LP. They responded, saying that they had received our request, but did not offer us any options, and they did not inform us that they had put our home up for sale. Selene Finance, LP later sent us an e-mail on XX/XX/XXXX, where they informed us that they had sold our property. We sent them an e-mail in response on XX/XX/XXXX, where we described, in detail, a large part of their deceptive and malicious handling of our mortgage, including not telling us that they had put our home up for sale until after the date of sale. What is in this response e-mail is only a small fraction of what we've had to deal with over many years ( and does not include some of their most egregious conduct : like insulting us over the phone ; treating us in a seemingly discriminatory manner because we are XXXX ; telling us to \" just hand over our home and stop being scoundrels ; '' creating procedural difficulties for us by demanding irrelevant documents that they knew did not apply to our case, such as the death certificate of the person applying for a modification ; we also interpreted their demands for our death certificates as mocking, insulting, humiliating, and as them wishing for our deaths ; they have also repeatedly refused to help us or give us any options with regards to our mortgage, not even a short sale or deed-in-lieu. ) Attached to this e-mail were documents supporting our claims. We will reproduce this letter below and send you all the necessary documents. Their behavior has forced us to file complaints before : we previously filed a complaint with the XX/XX/XXXX, where we reported their hostile and uncooperative behavior. \n\n\" To Selene Finance, Contrary to what you wrote in your e-mail, this is the first time we have received a communication from your company in a while. Your e-mail falsely claims that Selene tried every means of communication to contact us, but that we would not respond. Your e-mail tries to lay the blame for this situation squarely at our feet in an attempt to exonerate your company from any of the blame. You, Selene Finance, are trying to concoct a false narrative where you did everything right and we did everything wrong, where you offered us all the help and options available, but we just did not cooperate with you. The worst part is that you have all the resources you could ever possibly needmoney, legal representation, savvy businessmenand you still resort to lowly, underhanded, and petty tactics like misrepresenting the facts ( in other words, lying by omission, or sometimes, just lying ), insulting us, and not sending us important legal information ( in an effort to take advantage of our lack of legal knowledge and procedure ). For example, you have routinely sent us important letters uncomfortably close to the deadline ( most likely in a not-so-subtle attempt to make us miss important deadlines, so that we lose our home based on procedural technicalities ), or much later than anticipated. We always respond quickly, but you try to wait until the last minute to maximize the chances of us missing important legal deadlines. To you, this is another paycheck, our property another series of numbers in an infinite caseload, it means nothing to you except one more way to fatten your wallet by taking from those that barely have anything to begin with. To us, this is everything. This is our home, this is the place our children have grown up in, the place where we have created a life together. This is a battle we have been fighting for more than a decade, and we will keep fighting it until the end, because it is that important to us. Whatever happens, we want the truth to be known. Whatever happens, let it be known that we fought, honestly and humbly, until the end.\n\nYour latest e-mail states that it was sent solely for the purpose of informing us. However, I think that the real purpose of the e-mail is to justify each one of the questionable actions of Selene Finance regarding the handling of our mortgage in order to prevent any claims being brought against you. \n\nYou claim that your company tried to communicate with us on numerous occasions in an effort to give us more options and assist us with loss mitigation procedures. However, we were not contacted by your company, not by phone, and not by email. You did send us some letters where you explained the options that were available to us to avoid foreclosure, but we know that these letters were merely a formality, because when we did apply for a modification, we did not receive any help from you. You made no options available to us. Additionally, I want to remind you that when we called your company in XXXX asking for help, you responded by insulting and offending us on the phone, and later, by mail. We reported you to theXX/XX/XXXX for this unprofessional conduct. \n\nIn your email, you also claim that Selene Finance did not receive an application package from us between the dates XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX. However, we have, in our possession, the very letter that your company sent us confirming that you had received our completed application in XX/XX/XXXX, which also stated that Selene would come to a decision regarding our case in a few days. We also have your XX/XX/XXXX letter, in which you denied us any and all help ; you refused to give us the option of a short sale, a deed-in-lieu, or a standard modification. Thus, if you had really wanted to help us, like you say you do, you would have already done so, and we would not be having this conversation. \n\nYou also claim that you have not received another application from us since XX/XX/XXXX. I want to remind you that, at the beginning of your e-mail, you, yourself, state that Selene received another request for a modification from us via e-mail on XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, we received your response XX/XX/XXXX, in which you stated that you had received our request but could not offer us any options or any help. \n\nYou also state that we needed to have sent Selene a completed loss mitigation application 37 days before the date of the sale of the property by reason of foreclosure. How could we have known that if you never informed us that our property was put up for sale nor the date of the sale? Even though you say in your e-mail that you wanted to help us keep our home, your letters and actions show the opposite. Because of all the above facts, I object to the sale of our property. \n\nI have not had a legal representative for an exceedingly long time. I am only a mother seeking help from your mortgage company to save our home, and I received no help from you. My only resources are the truth and the help of XXXX. \n\nSincerely, [ redacted ] ''","date_sent_to_company":"2021-10-06T21:11:17.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"33196","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4785521","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Selene Holdings LLC","date_received":"2021-10-06T20:12:55.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their behavior has forced us to file <em>complaints</em> before : we previously filed a <em>complaint</em> with the XX/XX/XXXX, where we reported their hostile and uncooperative behavior. \n\n\" To Selene Finance, Contrary to what you wrote in your e-mail, this is the first time we <em>have</em> received a communication from your company in a while. Your e-mail falsely <em>claims</em> that Selene tried every means of communication to <em>contact</em> us, but that we would not respond."]},"sort":[11.596588,"4785521"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21940339","_score":11.403925,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am responding regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX involving Capital One Financial Corporation and the inaccurate statement that my complaint requires authorization because of an alleged unauthorized third party. I strongly dispute that response and am once again clarifying that I am the living individual and consumer associated with the credit file and disputed Capital One accounts in question. I personally submitted this complaint and all supporting documentation on my own behalf. No third party, XXXX XXXX XXXX, attorney representative, or unauthorized individual is acting for me in this matter. The CFPB complaint itself clearly reflects my identifying information, complaint narrative, supporting attachments, and dispute details. \n\nI have already provided extensive documentation verifying my identity and supporting my identity theft claims, including : Copy of my Driver License Copy of my Social Security Card Proof of Current Address FTC Identity Theft Report Identity Theft Affidavit Prior written disputes and supporting records These documents were attached to my complaint and clearly demonstrate that I am the consumer associated with this matter. XXXX XXXX continued reliance on the phrase unauthorized third party appears to be an attempt to avoid conducting the reasonable investigation required under federal law rather than addressing the actual substance of the dispute. The issue is not authorization for a third party. The issue is that fraudulent Capital One accounts are being reported on my consumer credit file despite my repeated identity theft disputes and supporting evidence. \n\nAs reflected within my CFPB complaint submission, I clearly stated that the Capital One accounts being reported were not opened or authorized by me and do not represent financial obligations I knowingly incurred. I also requested that Capital One provide competent evidence proving that I knowingly opened or benefited from these accounts, including signed applications, contracts, transaction histories, identity verification records, and account-opening documentation. To date, no such competent evidence has been provided. \n\nInstead, Capital One continues to issue generalized responses while failing to provide the actual documentation necessary to establish lawful ownership or authorization of the disputed accounts. Generic internal verification or automated reporting confirmations are not sufficient under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThis letter serves as additional formal notice that I am exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including but not limited to : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), requiring reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ), requiring a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( FCRA XXXX ), requiring blocking of identity theft-related information XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), requiring furnishers to conduct meaningful investigations upon receiving disputes Under these provisions, once a consumer submits a valid identity theft report and supporting documentation, fraudulent information must be blocked and removed if it can not be properly verified through competent evidence. Capital One can not simply continue reporting disputed accounts without providing lawful proof that I knowingly authorized them. \n\nI also dispute any implication that my complaint is invalid because of an alleged authorization issue. My CFPB complaint contains my personal identifying information, contact information, written dispute narrative, and supporting documentation. I have repeatedly verified my identity and there is no legitimate basis for continuing to delay or avoid a substantive investigation into the fraudulent accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX  response does not resolve the core dispute. Rather than addressing the identity theft allegations and documentation submitted, the company responded by claiming authorization was needed from me to proceed. However, I already submitted the complaint directly and personally. This creates unnecessary delay and appears inconsistent with the obligations imposed by federal consumer protection laws. \n\nI am requesting that Capital One immediately conduct a proper reinvestigation into all disputed accounts associated with identity theft and provide the following : Copies of all signed applications and account agreements bearing my signature. \nCopies of all account-opening documentation and identity verification records used when the accounts were established. \nCopies of transaction records allegedly linking me to the disputed accounts. \nThe full method of verification ( MOV ) used to verify the disputed accounts, including : Whether verification occurred through e-Oscar, manual review, or third-party systems The date and time of verification The identity of the person or department conducting the verification The documents reviewed during the process The source of the data relied upon Complete audit trails and furnishing histories for each disputed account. \nCopies of all communications exchanged between Capital One and XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  regarding these disputed accounts. \nWritten confirmation that all disputed accounts are marked as disputed by consumer on all credit reporting agencies. \nImmediate deletion and blocking of all fraudulent Capital One accounts if Capital One can not provide competent evidence proving I knowingly opened or authorized them. \n\nI also remind Capital One that under FCRA XXXX, once identity theft documentation has been provided, the law requires blocking of fraudulent information unless the furnisher can establish that the information relates to a legitimate transaction involving the consumer. Unsupported assertions that the account was verified do not satisfy this legal standard. \n\nMy complaint specifically stated that this matter involves identity theft and fraudulent reporting, not merely a billing dispute. I have acted in good faith throughout this process and have repeatedly submitted all requested identification documents and supporting evidence. Despite this, Capital One continues to respond with procedural objections rather than addressing the actual fraudulent reporting concerns. \n\nThe continued reporting of these disputed accounts has caused substantial financial and personal harm, including : Damage to my credit score Increased difficulty obtaining financing and housing Emotional distress and anxiety Harm to my financial reputation Ongoing risk of future collection activity Lost financial opportunities Because these accounts are inaccurate and disputed as fraudulent, their continued reporting creates ongoing harm every month they remain on my consumer reports. \n\nI also request that Capital One notify XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  to immediately suppress, block, and remove all fraudulent Capital One accounts associated with my identity theft reports. If Capital One can not provide signed contracts, applications, or competent proof of authorization, these accounts must be permanently deleted from all consumer reporting agencies. \n\nFurthermore, if any accounts are removed or blocked, I request written confirmation that they will not be reinserted without full compliance with FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ), including advance written notice to me before any reinsertion occurs. \n\nI am again reiterating : I am the consumer associated with the credit file. \nI personally submitted this complaint. \nNo unauthorized third party is acting on my behalf. \nMy identity has already been verified multiple times. \nI submitted FTC identity theft documentation and supporting evidence. \nThe disputed Capital One accounts are fraudulent and not authorized by me. \n\nAccordingly, I demand immediate compliance with federal law and immediate corrective action. \n\nA fair resolution requires : Immediate deletion of all fraudulent Capital One accounts Blocking of identity theft-related information from reappearing Full reinvestigation compliant with the FCRA Written confirmation of all deletions and corrections Copies of all verification documents relied upon Confirmation that the disputed information will no longer be furnished or collected upon This matter remains unresolved until Capital One either : Produces competent evidence proving I knowingly authorized these accounts ; or Permanently removes and blocks the fraudulent accounts from all credit reporting agencies. \n\nIf this matter is not properly resolved, I reserve all rights to continue escalating through : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) State Attorney General offices Additional federal and state regulators Available private legal remedies under federal and state law I expect a substantive written response addressing the actual identity theft dispute and not another generalized claim regarding unauthorized third parties. The law requires meaningful investigation, maximum possible accuracy, and removal of unverifiable or fraudulent information.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-06T17:32:50.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"63121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21940339","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-05-06T17:25:40.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I also dispute any implication that my <em>complaint</em> is invalid <em>because</em> of an alleged authorization issue. My CFPB <em>complaint</em> contains my personal identifying information, <em>contact</em> information, written dispute <em>narrative</em>, and supporting documentation. I <em>have</em> repeatedly verified my identity and there is no legitimate basis for continuing to delay or avoid a substantive investigation into the fraudulent accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX  response does not resolve the core dispute."]},"sort":[11.403925,"21940339"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3234742","_score":11.222556,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Please be advised of the submission of the attached police report for the pending criminal charges against XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX card theft on the above account along with two other accounts. This account was reported to your office as fraud in XX/XX/2019 as was improperly cited as a civil matter after Mr. XXXX attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate the repayment of these cards on both his behalf and the affected cards behalf as well for full restitution and to avoid criminal prosecution. These attempts were unsuccessful after Ms. XXXX missed every promised repayment date and as such, the case has been referred to the DAs office for criminal charges. As directed by the Chase Executive Office,  this claim is being resubmitted to you with the police report attached for processing of this claim as fraudulent. \nNo further payments will be made on this account by Mr. XXXX as this account has been properly documented and reported as fraudulent to your company. Any attempts to collect this debt or require Mr. XXXX to make payments with threat of lawsuits, negative credit impacts, or garnishments or liens will be met with civil action. This complaint and accompanying police report are also being submitted to the North Carolina Attorney Generals Office and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due to the failure to thoroughly investigate this claim as fraud and writing the account off as civil citing the victim allowed the perpetrator access to his cards because they lived together. This statement was NEVER made by Mr. XXXX and is a falsehood created by the Chase fraud department to prevent alleviating Mr. XXXX burden placed upon him by the fraudulent charges on this account. Mr. XXXX has never made any statement that Ms. XXXX was allowed to use his cards, nor has he told you as much. This narrative was created by your own department and explained to Mr. XXXX by telephone that our system had no option to notate your account, so we had to put in there you provide access to your cards. This notation must also be removed as it is both incorrect and was NEVER stated by Mr. XXXX. This creates confusion and inaccurate information by anyone new who looks at this account and falsely assumes Mr. XXXX allowed Ms. XXXX access to his cards. This is not true as Mr. XXXX has stated in his complaint, Ms. XXXX took these cards from his wallet and dresser drawers without his knowledge or permission as well as recorded all his account numbers, security codes, expiration dates, and personal information in a notebook and used these without his permission. This notation on his account is false and must be removed immediately. \n\n\nLastly, no Statute, Federally or at the NC State level, allows for the commission of a crime to be civil for XXXX card theft simply because the victim and the criminal live in the same home. This would negate any purpose of authorized users, credit reports, or even the requirement to sign for authorization on purchases if anyone in the same household could use another persons credit card without their permission. It would also make the zero fraud liability your company advertises completely useless as you would simply claim anyone who used anothers card without their knowledge is civil, as you are trying to do to Mr. XXXX, simply because they resided in the home. \nYour argument is now that any family member, friend, roommate, or overnight guest could then illegally take the card holders credit card and use it without fear of any financial or legal consequences. Obviously, this is NOT the case and your company is well aware that no such law or statute exists, yet, you are attempting to use this as your justification for denial of Mr. XXXX fraud claim. I strongly recommend you take this fraud claim seriously at stop the ridiculous claim that this fraud is his responsibility to payback when you have all of the necessary evidence to support this claim as fraud. Simply stating to Mr. XXXX Our company is a financial institution and does not want to take this as a financial loss is NOT Mr. XXXX responsibility. Your company promotes a zero-fraud liability and must adhere to those promises once documentation has been provided that Mr. XXXX is NOT responsible for these charges. \nYour company is now in possession of Mr. XXXX statement of who the perpetrator is, her contact information, a copy of all fraudulent charges, and lastly a police report showing the charges for XXXX XXXX Transaction Card Fraud being filed by Officer XXXX XXXX of the XXXX Police Department on XX/XX/2019 after Mr. XXXX was unsuccessful in recovering these stolen funds himself on behalf of your company through negotiations with Ms. XXXX. Mr. XXXX has shown good faith in his actions and responsibility in his attempts to resolve this matter on his own prior to submitting this case to your company for fraud. \nIt has also been your own companys admission to mistakenly calculating the initial refund to Mr. XXXX account and then informing him this money was his to use on the card at his leisure because it was his refunded charges, even submitting a request to have a paper check cut in the amount of {$2500.00} sent by mail for his remaining refund so that he could cash the remaining refund out all at once without having to use the card to access the refunded money, then abruptly claiming this account is NOT fraud and instead civil and demanding all money to be returned after giving him access to these funds. This miscalculation on the refundable amount is not the fault of Mr. XXXX as your company and your company alone calculated the refund amount and then gave Mr. XXXX the access to these funds. The burden of your error is entirely upon your company and Mr. XXXX owes no further payments to your company. While Mr. XXXX is not demanding the excess money from the miscalculation, it is his stance that failure of an international banking institution to accurately provide the right refunded amount on his account is not his responsibility. It is the responsibility of Chase to ensure their employees are able to calculate simple mathematical equations and then properly apply those calculations to consumer accounts. With millions of transactions completed every day, a typical consumer such as Mr. XXXX should feel confident in the accuracy of the calculations and refunds provided since Chase has the more experienced and educated personnel on staff who do this exclusively on a daily basis. To attempt to require Mr. XXXX be held liable for your companies mistake in applying a refunded amount above what you intended is simply asinine and is a cost of doing business on behalf of your company. This should serve as a learning lesson to make sure that your company checks for accuracy before sending money to customers and then informing them they may spend this refund as it is theirs to do as they please. Mr. XXXX is not responsible for double checking your math, nor did he have the knowledge or the ability to do so as your company is attempting to argue. Should a client make a similar mistake and overpay on their intended minimum payment to Chase, I have no doubt that Chase would simply say It is not our responsibility to ensure the accuracy of how much money you pay us, so why would you expect something different from your customer, or in this case? I expect a full review of this account and all disputed charges submitted as fraudulent to be removed as promised.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-05-07T17:27:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27530","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3234742","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-05-07T17:12:01.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX fraud <em>claim</em>. I strongly recommend you take this fraud <em>claim</em> seriously at stop the ridiculous <em>claim</em> that this fraud is his responsibility to payback when you <em>have</em> all of the necessary evidence to support this <em>claim</em> as fraud. Simply stating to Mr. XXXX Our company is a financial institution and does not want to take this as a financial loss is NOT Mr. XXXX responsibility."]},"sort":[11.222556,"3234742"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15736754","_score":10.751052,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint because my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and other federal protections have been repeatedly violated by the inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading reporting of the following accounts and public records. These inaccurate entries are causing me severe harm in the form of credit denials, higher interest rates, financial stress, and reputational damage. I am requesting immediate investigation, correction, and removal of the following items. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX * * Date XXXX Balance : {$1400.00} Late Payment * * ISSUE : This account is inaccurately reporting late payments. The FCRA requires maximum possible accuracy under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). I have maintained consistent payments, and any claimed late entry is either an error, misapplied payment, or system glitch. Reporting false late payments severely damages my creditworthiness and gives a misleading representation of my payment history.STORY : At the time these alleged lates were reported, I had already communicated with the creditor regarding payment arrangements due to temporary hardship. Instead of honoring this arrangement, they proceeded to report lates. This not only violates my rights under FCRA but also conflicts with the duty of furnishers under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) to report accurate and fair information. The mental and financial stress caused by this misreporting has affected my ability to secure loans and opportunities. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX * * Date XXXX Balance : {$100.00} Charge Off * * ISSUE : This charge-off is inaccurate and unverifiable. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i, the credit bureau must delete accounts that can not be verified. The reporting creditor has failed to validate the alleged debt with complete records. A {$100.00} balance being charged off is unreasonable and inconsistent with industry practice, suggesting reporting abuse or data entry error.STORY : I contacted XXXX multiple times to resolve the matter and was never provided proof of default or original documentation. Instead, the account was reported as a charge-off which continues to unfairly harm me. This inaccurate entry makes it look as though I abandoned debt responsibility, when in fact, the creditor failed to provide validation. This creates a misleading narrative in my credit file, causing undue hardship. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX * * Date XXXX Balance : {$480.00} Collection * * ISSUE : This account is reported as a collection but is inaccurate and duplicative. XXXX XXXX is known for attempting to collect on unverifiable debts. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( FDCPA ) and FCRA 1681i, they must provide complete validation of debt, which they have failed to do. Additionally, the balance reported is not consistent with the alleged original account.STORY : I have disputed this account several times, yet no proper validation or chain of assignment has been shown to prove that XXXX XXXX legally owns or has the right to collect this debt. Instead, the account remains reported, misleading creditors into thinking I owe when in fact, the debt can not be verified. The psychological and financial impact of this false reporting is significant, as it prevents me from rebuilding my financial stability. \nChapter XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX Court : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Bankruptcy ISSUE : These bankruptcy entries are duplicative and misleading. Only one accurate record should appear, not multiple conflicting versions. Reporting multiple entries for the same bankruptcy violates FCRA 1681c ( a ), which prohibits obsolete or duplicate negative information.STORY : I filed only one bankruptcy case, yet the bureaus are reporting it multiple times under different variations of court names and references. This inflates the negative effect on my credit and misrepresents the true record. This has unfairly caused lenders to view me as a repeat bankruptcy filer, which is false. The repeated and inconsistent entries have created severe reputational and financial harm. \nIn summary, the accounts and public records listed above are being reported inaccurately, incompletely, or in duplicate, violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I am requesting that the CFPB take immediate action to enforce compliance, require proper verification of each account, and remove any account or public record that can not be fully validated as accurate, complete, and legally reportable. The continued inaccurate reporting of these items is causing ongoing financial harm, credit denials, higher costs of borrowing, and severe emotional distress.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-05T20:26:02.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"611XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15736754","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-05T20:21:40.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> <em>because</em> my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and other federal protections <em>have</em> been repeatedly violated by the inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading reporting of the following accounts and public records. These inaccurate entries are causing me severe harm in the form of credit denials, higher interest rates, financial stress, and reputational damage."]},"sort":[10.751052,"15736754"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22295517","_score":10.73394,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns XXXX  mortgage account number XXXX, serviced by Onity Mortgage Corporation, formerly PHH Mortgage Corporation. This is not a routine missed-payment complaint. This is a mortgage-servicing, credit-reporting, and foreclosure-escalation complaint arising from Onitys mishandling of approved state disaster-relief mortgage assistance through the XXXX Mortgage Fund. \n\nThe central harm is that Onity reported, or caused to be reported, a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX-day late mortgage delinquency to XXXX XXXX  and XXXX  while the loan was already approved for XXXX XXXXisaster-assistance payments, while XXXX  funds had already been sent directly to the servicer, and while Onity/PHHs own records show the first {$12000.00} XXXX payment was posted effective XX/XX/XXXX. I also dispute any XX/XX/XXXX negative reporting, rolling delinquency coding, account-status coding, payment-rating coding, derogatory payment history, or continued past-due reporting caused by the same servicing failure. \n\nThe mortgage was transferred to XXXX effective XX/XX/XXXX. The servicing-transfer notice stated that during the first 60 days following the transfer, no late fees would be assessed and negative credit reporting would not occur. Shortly after that transfer, the loan became part of an approved XXXX Mortgage Fund disaster-assistance payment process. \n\nThe XXXX Mortgage Fund approved the application on XX/XX/XXXX for up to 12 months of mortgage payment assistance. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX notified the borrower that funds had been sent to the mortgage servicer and that XXXX was awaiting confirmation that the servicer had applied the funds. \n\nOnity/PHHs own XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statement confirms that a {$12000.00} payment was posted on XX/XX/XXXX with a received/credited date of XX/XX/XXXX. The statement shows that the payment was applied across principal, interest, and escrow. However, despite the funds being sent by XXXX and despite Onity/PHHs own statement showing the payment posted effective XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX did not receive servicer confirmation until XX/XX/XXXX, approximately 34 days after the funds were sent. \n\nThat delay is material. XXXX is a California disaster mortgage-assistance program that pays approved mortgage assistance directly to the servicer in cycles. Onitys delayed confirmation appears to have interrupted or delayed the next XXXX XXXXayment cycle and caused the account to appear past due for XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of treating the matter as a state-assistance payment-processing and servicer-confirmation issue, Onity treated the account as a borrower-caused delinquency. \n\nOnity then furnished, maintained, or failed to correct a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX late mortgage delinquency even though the account status was materially incomplete and misleading. The reporting did not accurately reflect the approved XXXX assistance, the direct state disbursement to the servicer, Onity/PHHs own XX/XX/XXXX effective credit date, or Onitys role in delaying confirmation back to XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX XXXX late reporting is inaccurate, incomplete, and materially misleading under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V. \n\nThe account continued to escalate despite the active XXXX  payment process. The XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statement showed the account due for the XX/XX/XXXX payment and included a {$50.00} assessed expense/inspection fee. The XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statement stated that the account was XXXX payments behind, showed past-due payments of {$8100.00}, assessed a {$110.00} late fee, and continued carrying the {$50.00} assessed expense. On XX/XX/XXXX, Onity issued a Notice of Default/Demand Notice claiming the next payment due date was XX/XX/XXXX, claiming XXXX monthly payments were due, and demanding {$8300.00} to cure default. \n\nXXXX then stated on XX/XX/XXXX that another {$12000.00} payment had been applied to the mortgage by the servicer. Despite that state-program confirmation, Onitys account records/online ledger did not visibly reflect that payment as properly applied to cure the alleged delinquency. XXXX day later, on XX/XX/XXXX, Onity issued an Initial Contact Letter required under California XXXX XXXX XXXX, a foreclosure-related pre-notice communication, while approved state disaster-relief mortgage assistance remained active, unresolved, and unreconciled. \n\nThese facts implicate RESPA Regulation X, including XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ), ( b ) ( XXXX ), ( b ) ( XXXX ), and ( b ) ( XXXX ), because Onity failed to properly accept, apply, credit, reconcile, investigate, and correct mortgage servicing errors after XXXX disaster-assistance payments were sent and/or applied. The facts also implicate XXXX C.F.R. XXXX because Onity must provide a complete servicing explanation and records concerning payment application, suspense accounting, XXXX XXXX, credit reporting, default status, foreclosure suppression, and payment-cycle reconciliation. \n\nThese facts also implicate the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ), and XXXX XXXX, because Onity furnished, maintained, or failed to correct XX/XX/XXXX and potentially XX/XX/XXXX negative credit reporting that was inaccurate, incomplete, and materially misleading in light of the approved XXXX  disaster-assistance program, direct state disbursement to the servicer, and Onity/PHHs own payment-posting records XXXX \n\nThese facts also implicate California Homeowner Bill of Rights protections, including California XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, because Onity issued default and pre-foreclosure-related notices while approved state mortgage-assistance funds were active, pending, or unreconciled. These facts also require review under California disaster mortgage-protection law, including XXXX XXXX protections to the extent applicable, because the disputed XX/XX/XXXX and possible XX/XX/XXXX negative credit reporting occurred while disaster-related mortgage payment assistance was active and being paid directly to the servicer. \n\nOnitys conduct created a false and damaging account narrative : state disaster-assistance funds were approved, sent, and posted, yet Onity treated the account as delinquent, reported a XXXXday late mortgage event, assessed late/default/inspection fees, issued default notices, and moved into foreclosure-related California contact procedures. Onity should not be permitted to manufacture, preserve, or report a delinquency caused by its own XXXX  payment-handling and portal-confirmation failures.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-18T05:10:29.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"92008","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22295517","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2026-05-18T04:24:08.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX <em>because</em> Onity must provide a <em>complete</em> servicing explanation and records concerning payment application, suspense accounting, XXXX XXXX, credit reporting, default status, foreclosure suppression, and payment-cycle reconciliation. \n\nThese facts also implicate the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[10.73394,"22295517"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10380645","_score":10.586125,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"NOTES : -Mortage Loan is currently in foreclosure -Two complaints in this filing ; mortgage modification process failure and failure to pay homeowners insurance premiums -I will try to keep this narrative at a high level with minimal details due to space limitations ; I have multiple pages written with all the details for your review when appropriate. \n\nBeginning in early XXXX and spanning most of that year, my family began a series of XXXX episodes ( elderly mother, young daughter, and myself ). I was unable to make mortgage payments and applied for an HAF grant. It was taking longer than anticipated to work through that process so I applied for assistance through my mortgage company ( SLS ), who ultimately approved me for trial payments ( XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) and a subsequent loan modification. My application for the HAF XXXX was approved and sent to underwriting at this time so I did not move forward with the lenders loan modification program. \n\nIn early XXXX, HAF underwriting denied disbursement of the grant based on my original loan amount falling outside their threshold. I reached out to my mortgage company to discuss options and they advised that I could make the XXXX and XXXX payments by the end of XXXX and then the XXXX payment in XXXX and they would move forward with the modification. \n\nI prepared XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the funds to make the payments in XXXX. Just a couple of days before this transaction was to take place, my landlord broke into my business facility and stole EVERYTHING, valued at nearly {$1.00} XXXX. Much of the equipment and property that was stolen was my personal property that would be covered by my XXXX homeowners insurance policy ( discussed further, later in this document ). I then could not make the trial payments and reached out to SLS again, who advised that I submit a new hardship letter and application for loan modification. \n\nI immediately submitted these documents and was approved in XXXX for the modification program again, with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX trial payments and a requirement that I officially accept the terms of the offer by XX/XX/XXXX, which I did. SLS representative \" XXXX '' took my XX/XX/XXXX phone call to accept the terms of the agreement, noted my file accordingly, and advised that I needed to make each trial payment in the month that it was due. I asked multiple times if this was acceptable and was reassured repeatedly by XXXX that everything was and would be fine, just make the XXXX payment by the end of the month. \n\nDuring this time, I attempted to file a claim with XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX theft. This was a major claim, significantly exceeding {$100000.00}. XXXX advised me that they had cancelled my insurance about XXXX months earlier, in XXXX, for non-payment. This was a shock to me because my mortgage company ( SLS ) was supposed to be paying insurance and taxes out of an escrow account. Apparently XXXX had sent a bill to SLS followed by notices of intent to cancel if payment was not received but XXXX ultimately failed to make the payment and XXXX cancelled my insurance. However, SLS still showed my homeowners insurance policy as 'active ' on my account on their website, displaying the policy number, coverage limits, etc. There was no indication that my policy had been cancelled. SLS subsequently acquired 'lender-initiated ' coverage that does not provide for theft protection and called it a done deal. Meanwhile, I am out XXXX figures on the theft claim and XXXX 's quote for a new, identical policy to my original will cost XXXX times as much. This insurance issue is XXXX of the complaints herein. \n\nBack to the mortgage modification issue- After officially accepting the terms of the modification agreement and being advised to make each trial payment in the month that the payment is due, I called to make the first payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I spoke with my point of contact, XXXX, who told me she couldn't accept of process the payment because my account had been taken out of the modification program. She investigated but neither she nor her supervisor understood why it was taken out of the program. She said IT limitations prevented her from opening it back up but that I should just reapply to set it back up and they'd approve it. \n\nI reapplied but we were now in the middle of the transition from SLS to Newrez/Shellpoint. Customer service could not help as the company was in disarray. The service rep couldn't find documents or employees and proactively filed internal complaints. She told me to give them a couple of weeks to get things straightened out. They did not reach back out to me, so I began calling them. They didn't return messages and scheduled a call with a rep at their earliest convenience - the following week. This delayed the process by XXXX weeks and began a cycle of processing applications and then cancelling them before completing them. This cycle of opening and closing the modification process has happened probably more than 5 times since XXXX. \n\nDuring this XXXX months, Shellpoint has requested documents be sent to email addresses that don't exist ( I have the systems-generated rejected and returned emails ), has advised that I return calls during hours when they are not open, has blocked emails with requested attachments and not notified me that the email was blocked, has told me they simply acquired some loans and that SLS still exists, requested that I reach out to SLS reps that admitted they errored in terminating the XXXX trial payment plan to have them call Shellpoint reps, fails to call during scheduled 'meeting ' times, and has been pointing the finger at SLS all along, claiming that 'the past is the past, stop thinking about it ' and has told me if I am filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau / CFPB, then they can not help me with the mortgage modification process. Seems a bit retaliatory and illegal. \n\nThis discussion of the mortgage modification missteps is the other complain herein. \n\nThere is an awful lot of commotion and chaos to this situation. I hope I was able to provide a concise enough description for you to understand much to most of the issue. Again, please don't hesitate to reach out to me for more information. I have some contemporaneous notes too.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-08T20:33:37.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"99208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10380645","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2024-10-08T20:06:44.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["NOTES : -Mortage Loan is currently in foreclosure -Two <em>complaints</em> in this filing ; mortgage modification process failure and failure to pay homeowners insurance premiums -I will try to keep this <em>narrative</em> at a high level with minimal details due to space limitations ; I <em>have</em> multiple pages written with all the details for your review when appropriate."]},"sort":[10.586125,"10380645"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":65,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":65}]}},"product":{"doc_count":65,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":7},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":10,"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":9},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":6},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":6},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Private student loan debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":2},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":5,"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":5}]}},{"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":"Student loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1},{"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":65,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":9},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":3},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":3},{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":2},{"key":"Private mortgage insurance (PMI)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fees charged for closing 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":"Delays with the closing process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","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":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Wrong amount charged or received","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":65,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":63},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":65,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":53},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":5}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":65,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":65}]}},"company":{"doc_count":65,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":2},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":2},{"key":"Selene Holdings LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deutsche Bank","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rausch Sturm LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Revolut Technologies Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Solar Mosaic LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":65,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":8},{"key":"GA","doc_count":6},{"key":"NY","doc_count":6},{"key":"MO","doc_count":5},{"key":"NC","doc_count":5},{"key":"KY","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"MI","doc_count":3},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":3},{"key":"PA","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"WA","doc_count":3},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"AR","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"HI","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"UT","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":65,"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":26},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":65,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":7},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":6}]}}},"_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":{"2":[10.580528,"10380645"],"3":[6.785403,"14768395"]}}}