{"took":742,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":27,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16739990","_score":19.50926,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Product/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Company : Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Date of problem : XX/XX/year> ( original dispute ) Company response date : XX/XX/year> ( Closed with explanation ) Whos affected : Myself Account number : N/A ( ChexSystems consumer file ) Problem narrative ( what happened ) On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written dispute to ChexSystems regarding inaccurate and identity-theft-related information in my specialty consumer file. My dispute packet included an FTC Identity Theft Report and a Police Report. \n\nFTC Identity Theft Report : Ref # XXXX Police Report : Case # XXXX Despite receiving my identity-theft documentation, ChexSystems responded XXXX XX/XX/year> stating my complaint was closed with explanation and claiming the police report was not included. That is incorrect : both the FTC and police reports were provided with my dispute materials. ChexSystems did not apply an identity-theft block to the disputed items, did not conduct a proper reinvestigation, and referenced possible continued reporting/retention practices inconsistent with the FCRA. \n\nSpecific law/policy concerns FCRA 605B Identity-Theft Blocking With valid identity-theft documentation, ChexSystems must block the disputed information within 4 business days. This did not occur. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to Reinvestigate ChexSystems closed the dispute without a full, free reinvestigation within the required 30 days, and ignored evidence I supplied.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Improper Reinsertion Items previously deleted have re-appeared in downstream products without furnisher certification and 5-day written notice to me.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy ChexSystems relied on incomplete/unverified furnisher data and disregarded the FTC/Police reports I provided.\n\nFCRA 605A Security Freeze/Alerts I requested ( and again request ) a security freeze on my ChexSystems file . I have not received adequate confirmation that a freeze or appropriate alerts have been placed. \n\nChexSystems response states it will initiate a review and suggests contacting other agencies. However, ChexSystems independently maintains my specialty file and has its own statutory duties under the FCRA to block, delete, or verify data and to confirm freezes/opt-outs. \n\nThe continued presence or reappearance of inaccurate identity-theft entries in ChexSystems ( and any downstream products ) is harming my ability to open accounts and obtain business funding, as banks and fintechs routinely query ChexSystems during underwriting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T15:01:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16739990","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","date_received":"2025-10-22T04:04:15.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Product/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> Company : Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Date of <em>problem</em> : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> ( original <em>dispute</em> ) Company response date : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> ( Closed with explanation ) Whos affected : Myself Account number : N/A ( ChexSystems consumer <em>file</em> ) <em>Problem</em> <em>narrative</em> ( what happened ) On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I submitted a written <em>dispute</em> to ChexSystems"]},"sort":[19.50926,"16739990"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18027380","_score":19.069586,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Company to File Against : ShoulderTap Technologies , Inc. d/b/a Fizz ( Also consider filing an identical complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX. , the card issuer ).\n\nProduct : Credit Card ( or Prepaid Card, based on your specific Fizz account ) Issue : Problem with a purchase or transaction ( Sub-issues : Goods or services not received as agreed, and Incorrect or unnecessary fees ).\n\nNarrative : I am filing this formal complaint because my card issuer, Fizz ( operated by ShoulderTap Technologies , Inc. and issued through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), has failed to investigate and resolve a legitimate billing dispute involving the merchant XXXX XXXX. Fizz 's refusal to investigate constitutes a violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ).\n\n1. Disputed Charges and Total Remaining Amount : I am disputing charges totaling {$100.00} ( after a partial refund was provided ) : Charge 1 ( Undelivered Merchandise ) : {$47.00} ( Date of Transaction : [ Date of {$47.00} Charge ] ). This charge was for merchandise from XXXX XXXX that was never delivered. I have documentation confirming non-delivery. \n\nCharges 2 & 3 ( Unauthorized Recurring Fees ) : Two charges of {$29.00} each ( Dates of Transactions : [ Date of XXXX remaining {$29.00} Charge ] and [ Date of XXXX remaining {$29.00} Charge ] ). These charges are for an unauthorized recurring VIP subscription fee. A third, identical {$29.00} fee was refunded by Fizz on XX/XX/year>, but the XXXX charges noted above remain unresolved. \n\nXXXX. Fizz 's Failure to Investigate : I initiated a dispute with Fizz on XX/XX/year>, requesting an investigation into these billing errors. \n\nFizz explicitly denied the claim and refused to investigate, stating the issue \" isnt the type of error that were able to cover, '' and advising me to \" follow up with them [ the merchant ] for the other months that you were charged. '' They also stated : \" Sorry, we do not cover this kind of dispute claim. '' By denying this dispute and refusing to investigate the claims of non-delivery and unauthorized recurring fees, Fizz is violating its obligations as a card issuer under the FCBA to investigate billing errors. \n\nItem, Amount, Status Undelivered Merchandise, {$47.00}, Disputed ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) Unauthorized VIP Fee XXXX, {$29.00}, Disputed ( Fizz refused to refund ) Unauthorized VIP Fee XXXX, {$29.00}, Disputed ( Fizz refused to refund ) Unauthorized VIP Fee XXXX, {$29.00}, '' Refunded ( Fizz confirmed refund on XX/XX/year> ) '' Total Remaining Disputed, {$100.00}, ( XXXX + XXXX + XXXX )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-30T20:49:35.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"79924","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18027380","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ShoulderTap Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Fizz","date_received":"2025-11-30T20:34:12.000Z","state":"TX","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>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> this formal <em>complaint</em> because my card issuer, Fizz ( operated by ShoulderTap Technologies , Inc. and issued through XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ), has failed to <em>investigate</em> and resolve a legitimate billing <em>dispute</em> involving the merchant <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. Fizz 's refusal to <em>investigate</em> constitutes a violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ).\n\n1."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[19.069586,"18027380"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16770703","_score":18.355402,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint # XXXX Experian ( Consumer Credit Reporting ) Company : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nProduct/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Date problem began : XX/XX/year> Previously contacted the company? Yes dispute and Method of Verification ( MOV ) requests submitted ; inadequate response. \n\nWhat happened ( Problem narrative ) I am disputing an Experian-only tradeline reported as XXXX XXXX ( Acct : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This account appears only on Experian and is absent from TransUnion and Equifax, indicating misattribution, mixed-file contamination, or an unverifiable insertion. \n\nKey defects Experian-only discrepancy ( FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ) : Experian reports the account as XXXX, 30 Days Late, opened XX/XX/year>, balance {$100000.00}, term 84 months, last reported XX/XX/year>. No corresponding tradeline exists at other CRAs. Experian has not produced a signed application/contract, payment ledger, or a furnisher-certified verification. \n\nLate-Marker violation Metro 2 Code 162 : Experian is displaying a 30-day late without a complete month-by-month payment history or ledger support. Metro 2 requires a chronological history and documentation for late coding. Reporting late status without that support is incomplete/misleading and violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ). \n\nLate-Marker Evidence Table ( Experian ) : Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | Month : XX/XX/year> | Experian shows : 30 Days Late | Proof : No ledger/DLP provided Code 162 defect Remedy : delete late ; if unverifiable, delete entire tradeline. \n\nNo permissible-purpose inquiry on file ( FCRA 604 ( a ) ) : Experians disclosure shows no hard or soft inquiry from XXXX XXXX XXXX or affiliates ) around XX/XX/year>. Reporting an installment loan without a corresponding permissible-purpose inquiry and without a signed application/E-SIGN audit trail violates 604 ( a ) and 607 ( b ).\n\nReinsertion concern 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : Items previously corrected have reappeared without furnisher certification or 5-day written notice. I requested MOV ; Experian did not provide adequate documentation.\n\nIdentity-theft/mixed-file indicators 605B : Prior breach exposure and address/identifier anomalies exist. Any unverifiable identity-theft items must be blocked under 605B.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-24T05:21:39.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16770703","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-24T05:16:17.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> # <em>XXXX</em> Experian ( Consumer Credit Reporting ) Company : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nProduct/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> Date <em>problem</em> began : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> Previously contacted the company? Yes <em>dispute</em> and Method of Verification ( MOV ) requests submitted ; inadequate response."]},"sort":[18.355402,"16770703"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14073446","_score":17.46761,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Experian Product : Credit reporting Issue : Improper use of my report / Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem Consumer Complaint Narrative : On or around XX/XX/year>, Experian unlawfully debited {$29.00} from my XXXX  debit-linked account after I had already canceled their services. My debit card was locked at the time of the transaction. This debit was not authorized and no confirmation or service access was provided in return. The charge was processed after several failed attempts, despite my cancellation and revocation of authorization. \n\nI have made multiple attempts to resolve this with Experian over the last month, yet the {$29.00} has not been refunded, and I have received no investigation results, no billing breakdown, and no formal acknowledgement of the error. \n\nTo make matters worse, I am now experiencing what appears to be SSN-based suppression from Experians support system. I am unable to access a live agent through any methodphone, web chat, or portal. Each attempt is blocked, redirected, or terminated. In contrast, when my wife called the same number and entered her personal information, she was connected to a live agent within minutes. \n\nThis appears to be a form of automated retaliation or redlining against me as a consumer who has submitted numerous disputes and regulatory complaints. This denial of service access violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including : My right to access my file ( 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) My right to dispute and reinvestigate errors ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) Additionally, the unauthorized debit is governed under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), and Experian failed to comply with : 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( a ) Prohibition against unauthorized electronic fund transfers 12 CFR 1005.10 and 1005.11 Proper authorization and dispute resolution procedures I am now in a financial position where this {$29.00} loss has directly impacted my ability to secure credit or cover essential bills. Despite having a favorable credit score, I have been locked out of services, and Experians failure to actor even provide supporthas materially harmed me.\n\nRequested resolution : Immediate refund of the {$29.00} unauthorized debit Written investigation findings and refund breakdown Restoration of full account and agent access Federal enforcement action for violations of the FCRA and EFTA This complaint is submitted in good faith and under lawful standing. I request immediate regulatory review and resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-13T10:59:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14073446","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-13T10:45:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Company : Experian Product : Credit reporting Issue : Improper use of my report / <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> into an existing <em>problem</em> Consumer <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : On or around XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, Experian unlawfully debited {$29.00} from my <em>XXXX</em>  debit-linked account after I had already canceled their services. My debit card was locked at the time of the transaction. This debit was not authorized and no confirmation or service access was provided in return."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a lender or other company charging your account"]},"sort":[17.46761,"14073446"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16879506","_score":17.002205,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion and Experian are erroneously reporting information that should not be reported. I have sent several disputes that never get resolved due to the inaction of Transunion and Experian. XXXX has been the only entity that has completed all my disputes in the correct manner. I will include a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that shows that this account was satisfied and should not be reflected on my account as delinquent. \n\nCFPB Complaint : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion Company 2 : Experian 2. Product/Service Credit reporting , credit repair, or other services 3. Issue Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Sub-issue : Investigation didnt fix an error on your report 4. Complaint Narrative Account Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Account # XXXX Account Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Account Number : XXXX Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report. \n\nDetailed Narrative : This complaint is filed against TransUnion and Experian for their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into an inaccurate and unverified account, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i. The furnisher of this information is XXXXXXXX XXXX, with the underlying debt serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nHistory of Disputes and Lack of Verification : I have disputed this account with both TransUnion and Experian on multiple occasions ( over 3 times each ), beginning on or about XX/XX/year>. In my disputes, I specifically requested that the Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) provide the verification documents used by the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX to substantiate the accuracy of this debt. To date, neither TransUnion nor Experian has provided any verifiable documentation for my inspection. This failure to provide proof of verification constitutes a violation of my rights under the FCRA. \n\nEvidence of Inaccuracy and Discharge of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ) : The account is factually inaccurate and misleading, especially in light of recent actions by the servicer. I am attaching a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>, titled Notification of Proposal to Accept Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ). \n\nThis letter explicitly states : We propose to accept your Membership in satisfaction of the balance, and the obligations due from you to us will be deemed discharged as a result.\n\nThis proposal, which I have not objected to, is a form of strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Once the collateral ( the Membership/Vacation Credits ) is accepted, the debt is legally discharged and satisfied.\n\nThe FCRA Violation : The continued reporting of this account as an active, outstanding, or delinquent debt by both TransUnion and Experian is a clear violation of the FCRA for the following reasons : 1. Failure to Verify ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The CRAs have failed to provide any documentation proving the accuracy of the account, despite multiple requests. \n2. Reporting Inaccurate Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : The account status is inaccurate because the debt has been satisfied and discharged ( or is in the process of being discharged ) via the UCC strict foreclosure process. The account should be immediately updated to reflect a XXXX balance and a status of Account Closed/Satisfied or Debt Discharged. \n3. Furnisher Violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : The furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to properly investigate my disputes and has continued to furnish information that is materially inaccurate and misleading to the CRAs, specifically failing to report the UCC strict foreclosure and subsequent discharge of the debt.\n\nRequest for Relief : I demand that TransUnion and Experian immediately delete this account entirely from my credit reports. Their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and their continued reporting of this inaccurate and unverified account, especially given the attached evidence of debt discharge, is causing me significant financial harm. \n\nI will be pursuing all available remedies, including litigation, if this account is not deleted immediately. \n\n\n5. Attachment ( Included Is the Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T16:53:45.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95829","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16879506","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-28T16:05:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> Sub-issue : <em>Investigation</em> didnt fix an error on your report 4. <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Account Information : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Account # <em>XXXX</em> Account Name : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em>  Account Number : <em>XXXX</em> Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report."]},"sort":[17.002205,"16879506"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16869742","_score":17.002205,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion and Experian are erroneously reporting information that should not be reported. I have sent several disputes that never get resolved due to the inaction of Transunion and Experian. XXXX has been the only entity that has completed all my disputes in the correct manner. I will include a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that shows that this account was satisfied and should not be reflected on my account as delinquent. \n\nCFPB Complaint : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion Company 2 : Experian 2. Product/Service Credit reporting , credit repair, or other services 3. Issue Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Sub-issue : Investigation didnt fix an error on your report 4. Complaint Narrative Account Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Account # XXXX Account Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Account Number : XXXX Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report. \n\nDetailed Narrative : This complaint is filed against TransUnion and Experian for their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into an inaccurate and unverified account, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i. The furnisher of this information is XXXXXXXX XXXX, with the underlying debt serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nHistory of Disputes and Lack of Verification : I have disputed this account with both TransUnion and Experian on multiple occasions ( over 3 times each ), beginning on or about XX/XX/year>. In my disputes, I specifically requested that the Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) provide the verification documents used by the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX to substantiate the accuracy of this debt. To date, neither TransUnion nor Experian has provided any verifiable documentation for my inspection. This failure to provide proof of verification constitutes a violation of my rights under the FCRA. \n\nEvidence of Inaccuracy and Discharge of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ) : The account is factually inaccurate and misleading, especially in light of recent actions by the servicer. I am attaching a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>, titled Notification of Proposal to Accept Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ). \n\nThis letter explicitly states : We propose to accept your Membership in satisfaction of the balance, and the obligations due from you to us will be deemed discharged as a result.\n\nThis proposal, which I have not objected to, is a form of strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Once the collateral ( the Membership/Vacation Credits ) is accepted, the debt is legally discharged and satisfied.\n\nThe FCRA Violation : The continued reporting of this account as an active, outstanding, or delinquent debt by both TransUnion and Experian is a clear violation of the FCRA for the following reasons : 1. Failure to Verify ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The CRAs have failed to provide any documentation proving the accuracy of the account, despite multiple requests. \n2. Reporting Inaccurate Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : The account status is inaccurate because the debt has been satisfied and discharged ( or is in the process of being discharged ) via the UCC strict foreclosure process. The account should be immediately updated to reflect a XXXX balance and a status of Account Closed/Satisfied or Debt Discharged. \n3. Furnisher Violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : The furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to properly investigate my disputes and has continued to furnish information that is materially inaccurate and misleading to the CRAs, specifically failing to report the UCC strict foreclosure and subsequent discharge of the debt.\n\nRequest for Relief : I demand that TransUnion and Experian immediately delete this account entirely from my credit reports. Their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and their continued reporting of this inaccurate and unverified account, especially given the attached evidence of debt discharge, is causing me significant financial harm. \n\nI will be pursuing all available remedies, including litigation, if this account is not deleted immediately. \n\n\n5. Attachment ( Included Is the Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T16:53:48.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95829","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16869742","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-28T16:53:18.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> Sub-issue : <em>Investigation</em> didnt fix an error on your report 4. <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Account Information : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Account # <em>XXXX</em> Account Name : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em>  Account Number : <em>XXXX</em> Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report."]},"sort":[17.002205,"16869742"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14078502","_score":16.341652,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I hope this finds you well. I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered complaints by Experian that were filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB Complaint XXXX. \n\nDespite multiple formal complaints filed with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved. Experian has claimed that my dispute could not be processed due to a lack of information ; however, I have provided all personally identifying information required under federal law, including my full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, current mailing address, phone number, and email address. I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information. I believe this constitutes perjury and other violations of United States Codeboth criminal and civil.\n\nPursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), consumer reporting agencies are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when furnished with sufficient identifying information and the nature of the dispute. I have met all legal thresholds under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically under 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( i ), which mandates reinvestigation of disputed items when proper notice is given. Experian has not investigated this matter, consistent with federal law. Rather, once again, I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information to avoid having to do their jobs or upset a banking partner -- especially since Experian now offers debit card services. \n\nThis inaccurate and unresolved derogatory mark on my credit report is not only unwarranted given the timely payments made in XX/XX/year>, but it has also caused substantial harm beyond financial inconvenience. As a current law student aXXXX XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, I have been forced to disclose this matter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX due to its potential professional implications. Further, under the character and fitness requirements of the State Bar of Georgia, I may be required to disclose this credit dispute during the bar application process. This unjustified derogatory credit report entry could negatively affect my ability to sit for and pass the bar exam, directly impairing my future in the legal profession. I respectfully request that the CFPB take this matter seriously and request the CFPB order that the XX/XX/year> 30-day late payment notation be removed without further delay.\n\nIn accordance with my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), I am formally disputing the inaccurate reporting of a 30-day late payment for XX/XX/year> on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card account XXXX I made two timely payments during that billing cycle {$130.00} on XX/XX/year> ( satisfying more than the required minimum ), and an additional {$160.00} on XX/XX/year>. Both payments were posted well within the billing period, and at no point was my account delinquent by 30 days or more. \n\nThe credit reporting error has resulted in a significant and unjustified drop in my credit score. I am respectfully requesting the immediate correction of this error and removal of the inaccurate late payment notation from my credit history with all relevant credit bureaus. Supporting documentation is enclosed, along with the original complaint filed that list all required information under federal law that Experian is making false statements about.\n\nThe information relevant to this disputeincluding the underlying facts, payment confirmations, and timeline of eventsis fully contained in the supplemental attachments provided. Additionally, a short narrative has been included in the updated portion of this submission to ensure clarity and compliance. This has been done specifically to preempt and refute any further false or misleading claims by Experian that there is \" not enough information '' to process the dispute. Such claims are directly contrary to federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 [ i ] ) and implementing regulations under 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), which requires only basic identifying information and the nature of the dispute to trigger a reinvestigation. All such required informationmy full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, mailing address, phone number, email address, and a description of the errorhas been provided in full.\n\nAll information required under federal law to process and investigate this dispute has been fully provided, including my personal identifying details, a detailed description of the issue, and supporting documentation.\n\nTherefore, no further communication from Experian or any party should assert that there is not enough information to proceed. This claim has already been falsely made once and is without merit. In addition to the written narrative, I have included ample supplemental materials, such as payment confirmation screenshots and relevant bank records, which clearly demonstrate the error. The volume and clarity of the evidence submitted leave no legitimate basis to delay or deny a proper reinvestigation.\n\nIt appears that Experians reliance on third-party vendors to handle disputes is part of the problem, as their vendors must be operating with inaccurate or incomplete information. However, as consumers, we are never told who these vendors are or what methods they use to investigate disputesleaving the process entirely opaque and unaccountable. In my case, Experian only initiated any investigation after I filed a separate complaint highlighting their failure to act professionally or at all, contrary to federal law and federal regulations. Their claim that there was not enough information was not only false but seemed to be a deliberate attempt to avoid initiating a reinvestigation. Once that complaint forced them to act, Experian quickly ruled against meclearly favoring a result that would shield them from admitting that they had failed to follow federal law and had neglected their legal obligations to consumers. To acknowledge the error would have been to admit that they did not perform their duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that they allowed inaccurate information to harm consumers like myself. It appeared as if it was rigged, because it felt like it was just a game of mitigating legal liability for Experian.\n\nP.S. : I expressly reserve any and all rights and liberties afforded to me under statutory law, constitutional provisions, judicial precedent, and all other applicable legal frameworks, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, associated provisions within the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations, the Rules & Regulations of the State of Georgia, and the applicable ordinances and regulatory authority of XXXX XXXX and the City of Atlanta. I further reserve all rights under law and equity to pursue appropriate civil remedies and, if warranted, initiate or recommend criminal proceedings or referrals to applicable local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies.\n\nP.P.S. : I also formally request full transparency regarding this dispute, including the identity of the investigator ( s ) assigned to this matter and the name ( s ) of any third-party vendor ( s ) used by Experian in conducting their review. If any vendor or agent acted upon false or incomplete information or failed to comply with federal standards of reinvestigation, then theyand any individuals acting beyond their authorized scopemay be held personally and professionally liable in addition to their respective corporate entities. \n\nP.P.P.S : It is also important to note that, according to XXXX XXXX own policies and standard industry practices, negative credit reporting does not occur unless a payment is thirty ( 30 ) days past due. In this case, the minimum payment was made on XX/XX/year>, and a second payment was made just five days later on XXXX XXXX well within the billing cycle and well before the 30-day threshold. Even if the XX/XX/XXXX payment had posted a day late, it would not have triggered a 30-day delinquency under either industry norms or the Cardholder Agreement governing my account. Therefore, XXXX XXXX reporting of a 30-day late payment is factually and contractually unjustified and must be corrected. \n\nNARRATIVE : In midXXXX, I checked my credit score and was shocked to see a steep decline. I looked and noticed my payment history section was inaccurately dinged. It claimed I was late 30 days or more on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX payment. That is incorrect, and I am requesting that it be removed from my credit report. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I paid more than the minimum payment obligation required ( {$130.00} ). Furthermore, on XX/XX/year>, I made an additional payment to XXXX XXXX toward my balance ( {$160.00} ). This was in addition to satisfying my minimum payment obligation ( {$25.00} a month ) that I paid in full and fulfilled on XX/XX/year> by a payment of {$130.00}. \n\nThe Experian Credit Report inaccurately reports that XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was a past due account by 30 days. That is incorrect because payments were made on XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>. Both payments were above the minimum payment required and received/posted in early XX/XX/year>, making it impossible to be 30 days past due. \n\nI am requesting the inaccurate information regarding payment history be removed from my credit report history.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T21:58:25.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14078502","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-14T21:45:14.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered <em>complaints</em> by Experian that were <em>filed</em> with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \n\nDespite multiple formal <em>complaints</em> <em>filed</em> with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved."]},"sort":[16.341652,"14078502"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17534605","_score":15.993195,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Regulatory Control ) XXXX  Product : Checking or Savings Account XXXX  Complaint Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : Problems when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Your Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank of America account received an unauthorized ACH DEPOSIT of {$39.00} on XX/XX/year>XXXX  with the descriptor XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a clear case of potential identity theft using my name. \nThe institutional process at Bank of America constitutes a systemic regulatory failure in seven major ways : PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ( PRIOR CFPB FILINGS ) : This is not an isolated event. Prior CFPB complaints filed by me against Bank of America document a continuing pattern of systemic failure and policy abuse that deliberately obstructs fraud investigation and shifts liability onto the victim. This current case must be viewed within the context of the bank 's established, non-compliant operational history.\n\nINTENTIONAL DELAY & SHORTENING OF STATUTORY REMEDY WINDOW : The bank 's internal policy mandates that the claim 's official start date is delayed until the NEXT BUSINESS DAY after the fraud is reported. This procedure is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for dispute resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to investigate their claim.\n\nSYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from filing a direct \" Fraud '' claim for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority \" Dispute '' or \" Billing Error '' category. This deliberate abuse of Regulation E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery. The banks process actively routes high-priority fraud cases away from required investigation tracks. \nImplied Admission, Obstruction, and Warning of Personal Risk : During my call at XXXXXXXX XXXX  EST ( Ref : XXXX XXXX ), the representative named XXXX provided an explicit and alarming warning to \" be careful '' before transferring me. This warning, coupled with XXXX having misspoken about a \" XXXX and something dollar credit, '' strongly suggests internal staff awareness of a hazardous or compromised claim process. Furthermore, the bank refused to provide any documentation in writing confirming the systemic policy flaws, which constitutes deliberate obstruction. \nEGREGIOUS BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE ( SUICIDAL DISCLOSURE ) : During a prior, separate call concerning money being taken from my account ( approximately a couple of months ago, right before my daughter 's birthday ), I directly disclosed to the Bank of America representative that I was crying, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  and self-harm due to the financial distress caused by the bank 's actions. The representative, upon hearing this direct disclosure of suicidal ideation, failed to follow any institutional crisis protocol, failed to advise me to seek help, and failed to connect me to any XXXX XXXX resources. This profound disregard for consumer welfare constitutes an EGREGIOUS BREACH OF THE BANK 'S DUTY OF CARE, directly linking their financial misconduct to the endangerment of a customer 's life. \nContradictory Regulatory Stance ( Control the Narrative ) : The bank 's internal processes create a contradictory regulatory stance. While the serious, high-value fraud against my account likely triggered an internal Suspicious Activity Report ( SAR ) treating me as the source of suspicionthe bank simultaneously forced my official complaint into a low-priority \" Dispute '' category. This dual action is a deliberate attempt to control the regulatory narrative and shift liability.\n\nMishandling of Funds : As a direct result of the misclassification and delay, the bank has failed to properly isolate, remove, or trace the fraudulent funds, leaving the unauthorized {$39.00} commingled in my account. \nDesired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud compliance officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic audit of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E compliance, internal SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures. Given the systemic nature of this fraud, the institutional cover-up, and the severe breach of duty of care, I demand that the CFPB use its authority to facilitate the immediate connection of the victim with suitable class action counsel to pursue structural remediation and a class-wide remedy for all affected consumers. We demand mandatory civil penalties for these systemic violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T04:30:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17534605","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-26T04:20:08.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, and Regulatory Control ) <em>XXXX</em>  Product : Checking or Savings Account <em>XXXX</em>  <em>Complaint</em> Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : <em>Problems</em> when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Your <em>Complaint</em> Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank"]},"sort":[15.993195,"17534605"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19953856","_score":15.913715,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint as a clarification and evidence-based update to my prior CFPB complaint ( s ) regarding Synchrony Bank ( XXXX Rewards / Lowes credit card ). This is not a request to initiate another investigation. Synchrony already opened an investigation on XX/XX/year>, and I have already provided these updates directly to Synchrony ; the issue is that Synchronys prior investigations were incomplete and not reasonable, and Synchrony has not fully acknowledged or cured the underlying internal accounting error.\n\nNew evidence now proves the root cause : Synchrony mishandled an account migration/ledger continuity event across multiple account numbers. The dispute began around a {$150.00} credit/refund issue and later expanded due to how Synchrony migrated and posted balances across accounts ( including during a fraud-related account change ). The disputed amount was effectively duplicated/misapplied through internal posting and dispute-handling actions, which is why the alleged balance kept reappearing and why downstream fees/interest and credit furnishing harm occurred.\n\nThe key failure is that Synchrony did not conduct a reasonable investigation because it did not review the complete account chain and withheld critical records. I did not have online access to the original account ending XXXX while disputing this matter and could not obtain those statements through my disclosure demands. Synchrony repeatedly shifted the burden to me to prove facts that are exclusively within Synchronys control ( full statement history, internal notes, migration/merge audit trail, refund-check documentation, chargeback/rebuild documentation, and full ledger history ), while simultaneously keeping the foundational records inaccessible.\n\nNewly obtained statements for account ending XXXX materially change the record. Once I obtained the XXXX statements, it became clear the dispute involves internal transfer/migration handling and ledger continuity errors across the account chain. This is information Synchrony should have reviewed from the beginning and should have provided to me earlier. The existence and content of the XXXX record demonstrates that prior investigations were not complete and any prior final response conclusion was not based on a full record.\n\nSynchronys internal notes on the XXXX account include an admission of fault. I was advised that the XXXX statement for account ending XXXX contains Synchrony-generated internal notes indicating that proper dispute procedure was not followed and that the issue was treated as a Synchrony error. Synchrony refused to acknowledge fault for months while withholding the original-account statements and continuing to treat the matter as consumer liability.\n\nIn summary, I now have evidence that the issue is rooted in Synchronys internal accounting and migration/servicing errors, and that Synchronys prior investigation efforts were not reasonable because they did not incorporate the original account history and internal notes and did not reconcile the complete account chain.\n\nWhy CFPB involvement is still needed Although Synchrony has provided narrative responses and has claimed to investigate, the core problems remain : No reasonable investigation : prior reviews were incomplete because they did not reconcile all related account numbers and did not produce the investigation file and method of verification.\n\nEvidence withholding and burden shifting : Synchrony kept critical records inaccessible ( original account statements/notes ) while demanding that I provide proof of their own internal ledger/migration actions.\n\nFailure to acknowledge fault and cure : despite internal notes indicating Synchrony error, Synchrony delayed, refused to fully acknowledge responsibility, and did not promptly cure the issue with full documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T04:53:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"95610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19953856","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-03-04T04:34:17.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> as a clarification and evidence-based update to my prior CFPB <em>complaint</em> ( s ) regarding Synchrony Bank ( <em>XXXX</em> Rewards / Lowes credit card ). This is not a request to initiate another <em>investigation</em>."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[15.913715,"19953856"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17362186","_score":14.979522,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CONSUMER COMPLAINT NARRATIVE FOR CFPB Summary of the Problem My credit-card company mishandled my dispute regarding a {$1500.00} flat-fee payment made to an attorney who performed no legal work on my case. The attorney misrepresented information to the credit-card company, claiming he performed work, which was untrue. The credit-card company accepted his statement without verifying any facts, failed to follow proper investigation procedures, provided contradictory information, and ultimately closed my case unfairly. \nBackground On XX/XX/year>, I paid attorney XXXX XXXX, the owner and shareholder of XXXX XXXX, a flat fee of {$1500.00} plus a {$75.00} credit-card processing fee. \nHis associate, XXXX XXXX, was the attorney who was supposed to represent me. She nver performed any work, never communicated with me, and she is no longer with the firm. \nThe agreement was strictly a flat fee. I did not agree to hourly billing, and I was never given any hourly rate in writing. \nDespite paying in full upfront, no legal work was performed on my case. \nNo Notice of Appearance ( NOA ) was filed, no pleadings or motions were drafted, and none of my emails or questions were ever answered. \nI was forced to represent myself at a guardianship hearing because the attorney provided no service or support. \nAfter I requested a refund, the attorney attempted to switch the fee structure from flat fee to hourly after the fact, which was never agreed to. \nI explicitly rejected a partial refund in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, but the attorney processed one on XX/XX/XXXX without my consent. \nAfter I demanded a full refund, the attorney produced a retroactive hourly bill that did not exist before my request. \n\nXXXX ... \nAfter I demanded a full refund, the attorney produced a retroactive hourly bill that did not exist before my rquest. \nI believe the attorney took advantage of me as a woman alone, XXXX, and dealing with a sensitive guardianship case. \nMerchant Misrepresentation The attorney misrepresented the facts to my credit-card company by claiming that he performed legal services on my case. This was false. No work was done, no filings were made, and no preparation or communication occurred. \nDespite this, my credit-card company accepted his statement without verifying the truth or requesting evidence from me. \n\nFailures by the Credit-Card Company XXXX XXXX They ignored my written rejection of the partial refund. \nXXXX. They appeared intimidated by the fact the merchant was a law firm. \nXXXX. Multiple representatives gave contradictory statements. \nXXXX. Supervisors contradicted each other about the status of my dispute. \nXXXX. They refused to give escalation details or confirmation numbers. \nXXXX. They claimed they did not receive my documents, then later said they did. \nXXXX. They failed to conduct a proper investigation and relied solely on the attorney 's false statement. \nWhat I Request I request that the CFPB require my credit-card company to : XXXX. Reopen and properly reinvestigate my dispute. \nXXXX. Follow all Fair Credit Billing Act procedures. \nXXXX Review the documentation I submitted. \nXXXX. Consider the attorney 's misrepresentation. \nXXXX. Provide a lawful written explanation. \nXXXX. Issue a chargeback or adjustment for the unearned fee. \nXXXX. They claimed they did not receive my documents, then later said they did. \nXXXX. They failed to conduct a proper investigation and relied solely on the attorney 's false statement. \nWhat I Request I request that the CFPB require my credit-card company to : XXXX. Reopen and properly reinvestigate my dispute. \nXXXX. Follow all Fair Credit Billing Act procedures. \nXXXX Review the documentation I submitted. \nXXXX. Consider the attorney 's misrepresentation XXXX. Provide a lawful written explanation. \nXXXX. Issue a chargeback or adjustment for the unearned fee. \nXXXX. They failed to conduct a proper investigation and relied solely on the attorney 's false statement. \nWhat I Request I request that the CFPB require my credit-card company to : XXXX. Reopen and properly reinvestigate my dispute. \nXXXX. Follow all Fair Credit Billing Act procedures. \nXXXX Review the documentation I submitted. \nXXXX. Consider the attorney 's misrepresentation XXXX. Provide a lawful written explanation. \nXXXX. Issue a chargeback or adjustment for the unearned fee. \nSupporting Documents Available Flat-fee agreement Emails showing no legal work was performed My written rejection of the partial refund Proof of unauthorized partial refund Retroactive hourly bill Communications with the credit-card company Supervisor call notes NC State Bar fee-dispute narrative Conclusion My credit-card company mishandled my dispute, failed to apply federal consumer-protection laws, gave contradictory information, and relied on false statements by the attorney Instead of the evidence i provided. I respectfully request CFPB intervention to ensure that my case is reopened, properly investigated, and resolved in accordance with the Fair Credit Billing Act.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-19T21:49:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"28277","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17362186","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2025-11-19T21:14:00.000Z","state":"NC","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":["CONSUMER <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> FOR CFPB Summary of the <em>Problem</em> My credit-card company mishandled my <em>dispute</em> regarding a {$1500.00} flat-fee payment made to an attorney who performed no legal work on my case. The attorney misrepresented information to the credit-card company, claiming he performed work, which was untrue."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[14.979522,"17362186"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9009452","_score":13.687968,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX was filed here and to date no response has been given. BofA has had close to 4 years to investigate the fraud on my account. How much more time does the bank need? They are given two billing cycles and no more than 90 days to repair this mess and 4 years later here we are. While disputing these fraudulent charges I was never issued any type of provisional credit. My account was not closed nor was the card closed by the bank and a new card issued. This continued to pose huge problems as my number was being used both Internationally and here in the states. The fraud continued due to the lack of any security protection on the XXXX cards. This was a criminals heaven. I would wait on 6 hour hold times just to hear that the bank felt the charges were mine. Knowing they werent I began to become very proactive and with my due diligence began getting some of the money back. I knew something was off with the bank when they said to me that I could be going to a XXXX based dentist be on a XXXX XXXX shopping spree and be standing at an ATM in XXXX all within moments of one another. I gave them names of ATM owners I gave them names of store owners and they never filed any type of dispute charges on my behalf. How do I know this?? Three days ago I was on the phone with BofA claims and I was told that the XXXX XXXX shopping spree was still on my statement. When I found out that it was a gentleman who swiped the card numeorus times and was denied. The last time he swiped time XXXX or XXXX the bank approved the transaction. The manager said the moment your bank disputes the charge we would be happy to help you get your funds but the bank must initiate the claim. Now here is a bank who swears that the charges are mine and the people, places and things I have shown are not. Covid was in full swing there was no travel allowed. No crossing broders of other countries. But BofA said the charges are yours and that was that. Now I am owed XXXX and that is what I expect back. This has gone XXXX XXXX XXXX of absurd and to keep me waiting on top of the 4 I have waited is not right. If you had done your investigation when I called this would have been a closed deal. Why? Because you would have seen that the dentists, shopping sprees, wix, and all other items disputed are not mine. \n\nYou have had more than ample time to do this right. The letters I received XX/XX/year> saying you're done with your investigation and the charges are still mine is false. \n\nHaving my money stolen from me is wrong having a bank where the cards they issued had no security on them is negligent. Bank of America you need to be held accountable for this. You allowed my money to be stolen while you sit back and say \" the charges are XXXX 's '' is false. \n\nHow much time do you still need to try and make this fit into your narrative? You handled the XXXX accounts poorly you have been fined and the accounts taken away from your bank. If I need to hire an attorney to get my money back for me I will. I have now filled out complaints with the California Attorney General 's office, the Comp Controllers, the XXXX, the FTC and here on the CFPB. A police report was filled out years ago online during the closure due to COVID. I would like my money please send me a check for the XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-15T02:53:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"90034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9009452","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-05-15T02:24:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The letters I received XX/XX/<em>year</em>> saying you're done with your <em>investigation</em> and the charges are still mine is false. \n\nHaving my money stolen from me is wrong having a bank where the cards they issued had no security on them is negligent. Bank of America you need to be held accountable for this. You allowed my money to be stolen while you sit back and say \" the charges are <em>XXXX</em> 's '' is false. \n\nHow much time do you still need to try and make this fit into your <em>narrative</em>?"],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase or transfer"]},"sort":[13.687968,"9009452"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18078721","_score":12.784419,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"# # COMPLAINT FORM - COMPLETE ANSWERS # # # * * Question 1 : Have you already tried to fix this problem with the company? * * * * Answer : YES * * * * Detailed Response to Include : * * \" Yes, I have attempted multiple remedies with both Chime and XXXX XXXX : * * Attempts with XXXX XXXX ( The Merchant ) : * * - Contacted XXXX XXXX support team regarding unauthorized duplicate accounts - Received official response ( XX/XX/year> ) confirming account verification rejection and permanent account lock - Requested refunds for fraudulent charges - No satisfactory resolution provided by merchant * * Attempts with Chime ( The Financial Institution ) : * * - Filed initial dispute in XX/XX/year> - Chime DENIED the dispute on XX/XX/year> - Immediately re-filed with complete documentation as Dispute # XXXX on XX/XX/year> - Currently in active investigation ( status : In Progress ) - Uploaded XXXX files of supporting documentation The merchant has not provided refunds, and Chime 's initial response was denial. I am now in the rebuttal and appeal process with Chime. '' * * * # # # * * Question 2 : Did you request information from the company? * * * * Answer : YES * * * * Detailed Response to Include : * * \" Yes, I specifically requested the following information from both XXXX XXXX and Chime : * * From XXXX XXXX ( Merchant ) : * * 1. Proof of account verification completed with legal identification 2. Explanation of how duplicate accounts were created under my name 3. Authorization documentation for each disputed transaction 4. Reason for permanent account lock 5. Refund for all unauthorized charges * * From Chime ( Financial Institution ) : * * 1. Explanation of why the original dispute was denied 2. Full documentation of their investigation 3. Reconsideration of the denial with new evidence 4. Status of current dispute # XXXX XXXX. Timeline for dispute resolution * * Documentation Received : * * - XXXX XXXX  provided an official support email ( XX/XX/year> ) confirming account issues but did NOT provide refunds or satisfactory resolution - Chime has not yet provided a written explanation of their original denial, though they have acknowledged the new dispute and are investigating '' * * * # # # * * Question 3 : What information did you request? ( Optional ) * * * * Answer ( Detailed List ) : * * \" I specifically requested the following categories of information : * * Account Verification & Compliance Information : * * - Proof that legal identification verification was completed before any charges were processed - Account verification status and dates - Identity verification compliance documentation ( KYC records ) - Account creation and activation records- Verification method and completion proof * * Fraudulent Activity Investigation : * * - Investigation of how duplicate accounts were created under my name - Security assessment of account compromise - Timeline of when duplicate accounts were discovered - Account creation IP addresses and timestamps- How unauthorized duplicate accounts were allowed to operate * * Transaction Authorization Documentation : * * - Written authorization for each of the XXXX  disputed transactions - Digital signatures or explicit customer consent records- Proof that customer explicitly authorized each charge - Terms and Conditions acceptance verification - Payment authorization records * * Account Restriction & Lock Details : * * - Reason for permanent account lock - Date decision to lock accounts was made - Retroactive review of account status at time each charge was processed - Policy violations documented - Terms and Conditions violations detailed * * Refund & Remediation : * * - Full refund for all fraudulent charges - Refund processing timeline - Account cleanup ( duplicate account removal ) - Compensation for fraudulent activity - Prevention measures to stop future unauthorized charges * * Regulatory Compliance : * * - Merchant account verification policies and procedures - Duplicate account prevention protocols- Payment processing compliance documentation - Chargeback and reversal procedures- Dispute investigation procedures followed '' * * * # # # * * Question 4 : Did the company provide this information? * * * * Answer : NO * * ( Select the \" NO '' option ) * * Detailed Response to Include : * * \" No, the company did NOT provide the information necessary to resolve this dispute.\n\n* * What XXXX XXXX DID Provide : * * - Official support email ( XX/XX/year> ) confirming : - Account verification was REJECTED - Multiple duplicate accounts were discovered- All accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED - Terms violations occurred * * What XXXX  XXXX  DID NOT Provide : * * - Proof of account verification ( they admit verification was rejected ) - Authorization documents for any transaction - Explanation of how duplicate accounts were created - Refund or compensation for fraudulent charges - Security investigation or account compromise report - Any satisfactory resolution * * What Chime DID Provide : * * - Dispute case number ( # XXXX ) - Request for additional documentation - Status update ( Agent investigating ) * * What Chime DID NOT Provide : * * - Written explanation of original denial ( XX/XX/year> ) - Written investigation findings- Provisional credit ( {$1200.00} ) - Resolution or refund ( case still in progress ) - Detailed response to appeals * * Critical Finding : * * Fortune Coins provided information that VALIDATES my fraud claim but did NOT provide refunds or resolution. In fact, their support email PROVES the charges were fraudulentthey admitted : 1. Account verification was REJECTED 2. Duplicate FRAUDULENT accounts existed 3. ALL accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED * * Yet despite this admission of fraud from the merchant, neither XXXX XXXX nor Chime has provided the critical information needed for resolution : A REFUND. * * * * Conclusion : * * The companies have not provided satisfactory information or resolution. The information they DID provide actually proves my fraud claim. Therefore, I am escalating to the CFPB for investigation and enforcement. '' * * * # # COMPLETE SUMMARY TABLE | Question | Answer | Status | | -- -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | | Tried to fix with company? | * * YES * * | Contacted both XXXX XXXX  and Chime multiple times | | Requested information? | * * YES * * | Specific, documented requests for verification and authorization | | What information requested? | * See detailed list * | Account verification, transaction authorization, refund details | | Company provide info? | * * NO * * | They provided admissions of fraud but NOT resolution | * * * # # STATEMENT TO INCLUDE WITH CFPB SUBMISSION * * '' Although both XXXX XXXX and Chime have provided limited information confirming the fraudulent nature of my accounts, neither company has provided the essential information required for resolution : proof of transaction authorization, account verification documentation, or a refund of fraudulent charges. * * * * In fact, XXXX XXXX ' own support email proves that : * * - Account verification was REJECTED - Multiple duplicate accounts were fraudulently created- ALL accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED * * Despite this clear evidence of fraud provided by the merchant themselves, I have received : * * - NO refunds from XXXX  XXXX  - NO satisfactory resolution from either company - NO adequate explanation of Chime 's original dispute denial * * I have attempted every reasonable remediation with both companies. Both have failed to provide adequate information or resolution. Therefore, I am escalating to the CFPB for investigation. * * '' * * * # # CRITICAL POINTS FOR CFPB These answers establish : * * I made good-faith efforts * * to resolve with the companies * * I specifically requested essential information * * they should have provided * * The companies failed to provide adequate information or resolution * * * * The merchant 's own communications prove fraud * * * * I have exhausted all reasonable remedies * * * * Escalation to CFPB is justified and necessary * * This positions your complaint perfectly for CFPB investigation and enforcement action against Chime for : - Improper dispute denial - Failure to investigate adequately - Violation of Regulation E And against XXXX XXXX  for : - Fraudulent merchant practices - Account verification failures - Unauthorized duplicate account creation More information # CFPB COMPLAINT : Chime Dispute # XXXX # # Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint Form -- - # # COMPLAINT INFORMATION * * Filing Date : * * XX/XX/year> * * Your Name : * * XXXX XXXX * * Your Email : * * XXXX * * Complaint Type : * * Billing disputes and problems * * Sub-Category : * * Dispute over a bill or service I didn't authorize -- - # # COMPANY INFORMATION * * Primary Company : * * Chime ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ) * * Company Address : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX * * Secondary Company Involved : * * XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX  ) * * Issue Date ( s ) : * * XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/year> * * Dispute Case Number : * * # XXXX -- - # # DETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE * * What happened : * * I submitted a formal dispute to Chime ( Dispute # XXXX ) on XX/XX/year>, for unauthorized charges totaling {$1200.00} USD from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). This dispute involves XXXX transactions processed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>. \n\n* * Why these charges are fraudulent and unauthorized : * * On XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX ' support team sent me an official email stating : \" Upon reviewing your account, we discovered numerous duplicate accounts under your name. We regret to inform you that we will no longer continue the account verification. We will now reject your account verification application. All accounts under your name have been permanently locked. '' This email proves : 1. My accounts were never legitimately verified with proper legal identification 2. Duplicate/fraudulent accounts existed under my name without my authorization 3. All accounts were permanently locked by the merchant 4. Therefore, all transactions processed on these unverified and later-locked accounts are fraudulent and unauthorized * * Pattern of merchant fraud : * * I have also successfully disputed charges from the same merchant ( XXXX XXXX ) through XXXX. Multiple XXXX disputes were closed in my favor, demonstrating a pattern of problematic practices by XXXX XXXX. The charges I am now disputing with Chime represent the same pattern : charges processed on unverified or compromised accounts. \n\n* * Evidence provided to Chime : * * I submitted XXXX files of documentation to Chime, including : - XXXX XXXX  ' official support email confirming account lock and verification rejection - All transaction confirmation emails from XXXX XXXX- XXXX dispute screenshots showing prior successful disputes against XXXX XXXX- Complete transaction history with dates, amounts, and transaction IDs- Bank records showing all charges * * Why this matters : * * Chime is responsible for handling this dispute fairly and thoroughly. The merchant 's own email proves these accounts were unverified and compromised. Chime should reverse all charges on these accounts, as they were processed on invalid accounts that the merchant itself has confirmed were never properly verified. \n-- - # # SPECIFIC COMPLAINT ISSUES * * Complaint Issue 1 : Failure to Investigate Authorized Disputed Charges * * * * Details : * * Chime received my dispute for unauthorized charges but has not yet resolved them ( case still marked \" In progress '' as of XX/XX/year> ). The evidence clearly shows these charges should be reversed immediately, as XXXX XXXX ' own email proves the accounts were unverified and later permanently locked. \n-- - * * Complaint Issue 2 : Merchant Account Verification Failure * * * * Details : * * XXXX XXXX allowed charges on accounts that were never properly verified with legal identification. When I requested refunds, their support team confirmed accounts were unverified and locked. Chime should hold XXXX XXXX  accountable for processing charges on unverified accounts. \n-- - * * Complaint Issue 3 : Pattern of Merchant Fraud Not Addressed * * * * Details : * * I have successfully disputed charges from XXXX XXXX through XXXX multiple times. Chime should be aware that this merchant has a documented history of fraudulent transactions across multiple payment platforms. My current dispute is part of this ongoing pattern. \n-- - # # REQUESTED RELIEF/RESOLUTION 1. * * Immediate reversal of all disputed charges : * * {$1200.00} USD 2. * * Full refund to my Chime account * * for all XXXX XXXX transactions 3. * * Chime should terminate its relationship with XXXX XXXX * * as a merchant due to pattern of fraudulent transactions 4. * * Investigation into whether XXXX XXXX violated payment processing agreements * * regarding account verification requirements 5. * * Chime should flag XXXX XXXX in their merchant database * * as a high-risk merchant with documented fraud history -- - # # TRANSACTION DETAILS | Date | Merchant | Amount | Transaction ID | Status | | -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -| -- -- -- -- | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$140.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$190.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$290.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$190.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$1.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$7.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$4.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX  | {$1.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$290.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$74.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$290.00} | XXXX | Disputed | * * Total Disputed Amount : {$1200.00} USD * * -- - # # KEY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING COMPLAINT # # # Evidence 1 : XXXX XXXX Support Email ( Critical ) * * Date : * * XX/XX/year>, XXXX PM * * From : * * XXXX * * Subject : * * Account Verification Status * * Full Email Content : * * \" Hi XXXX, Upon reviewing your account, we discovered numerous duplicate accounts under your name. We regret to inform you that we will no longer continue the account verification. \n\nWe will now reject your account verification application. All accounts under your name have been permanently locked. \n\nWhen you created an account on XXXX XXXX, you explicitly agreed to our Terms and Conditions. [ Link to T & Cs ] Please take note of the following section : - A check can only be issued to an open and operative Account, Operating one or opening duplicate Accounts may lead to the censure of all of your Accounts and render you ineligible.\n\nIf, however, please be aware that if you misuse your access in the future, they will also be banned. \n\nKind Regards, XXXX Customer Support Representative Get answers XXXX '' * * Why this is critical : * * This email proves XXXX XXXX : 1. Confirmed unverified accounts 2. Discovered duplicate/fraudulent accounts under my name 3. Rejected account verification 4. Permanently locked ALL accounts under my name 5. Admitted I should not have been able to operate multiple accounts This email alone proves all transactions were unauthorized and should be reversed. \n\n-- - # # # Evidence XXXX : XXXX Dispute Confirmations * * Multiple successful disputes closed in your favor against XXXX XXXX : * * - XXXX - {$190.00} USD ( Case Closed ) - XXXX - {$140.00} USD ( Case Closed ) - XXXX - {$290.00} USD ( Case Closed ) * * Why this matters : * * This demonstrates a pattern of XXXX XXXX processing fraudulent or unauthorized charges. XXXX has already determined similar charges were invalid, yet Chime has allowed the same merchant to continue charging the same account. \n\n-- - # # # Evidence 3 : Multiple Transaction Confirmations All transactions show XXXX XXXX  processed charges successfully on accounts that were later confirmed to be unverified and fraudulent. The confirmations themselves prove the merchant accepted charges knowing verification procedures were incomplete. \n\n-- - # # MERCHANT RESPONSE ANTICIPATED XXXX XXXX will likely claim : - \" Digital goods were delivered '' - \" Customer authorized the purchases '' - \" We don't require verification for virtual currency '' * * Why these arguments fail : * * - Their own support email proves accounts were unverified and locked - Unverified accounts = unauthorized charges - Their own terms state operating duplicate accounts violates their policy - XXXX has already ruled against them on similar charges - Chime holds merchants responsible for verification failures -- - # # PREVIOUS CONTACT WITH COMPANIES * * Chime Contact : * * - Submitted formal dispute : XX/XX/year> - Dispute Case # XXXX - Status : In progress / Agent investigating - Uploaded XXXX files of documentation * * XXXX XXXX Contact : * * - Received their support email confirming account lock : XX/XX/year> - No response to subsequent inquiries about refunds - Merchant has not addressed the fraudulent account issue -- - # # COMPLAINT AGAINST * * Primary : * * Chime ( and associated banks : The XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. / XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ) * * Secondary : * * XXXX XXXX ( XXXX )- for fraudulent transaction processing -- - # # WHY I'M FILING THIS COMPLAINT I am filing this CFPB complaint because : 1. * * Chime is not moving quickly enough * * to resolve obvious fraud ( case marked \" In progress '' as of XX/XX/year> ) 2. * * The evidence is overwhelming and undisputed * * XXXX XXXX  ' own email proves the fraud 3. * * Pattern recognition failure * * Chime should be aware XXXX XXXX has prior XXXX disputes, yet allowed continued transactions 4. * * Consumer protection failure * * A major issue with Chime 's dispute process is that it allows merchants to continue processing charges on flagged accounts 5. * * Accountability requirement * * Chime needs to understand this merchant represents ongoing fraud risk to their customers -- - # # SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Please attach to this CFPB complaint : 1. * * XXXX XXXXs Support Email * * ( XX/XX/year> ) MOST CRITICAL 2. * * Chime Dispute Confirmation * * showing case # XXXX XXXX. * * XXXX Dispute Screenshots * * showing successful prior disputes XXXX. * * All transaction confirmations * * from XXXX XXXX 5. * * Bank statements * * showing the charges 6. * * Screenshots of the XXXX files uploaded * * to Chime 's dispute portal -- - # # AUTHORITY & LEGAL BASIS * * Regulations violated : * * - Regulation E ( Electronic Fund Transfers ) 12 CFR 1005 - Regulation Z ( Truth in Lending ) 12 CFR 1026 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act Consumer Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction - Payment Card Network Rules ( XXXX  ) regarding merchant account verification * * Merchant violation : * * - XXXX XXXX violated Payment Card Association rules by processing transactions on unverified accounts - XXXX XXXX violated their own Terms and Conditions * * Bank responsibility : * * - Chime ( and underlying banks ) must properly investigate and resolve unauthorized transaction disputes - Chime is responsible for ensuring merchants comply with verification requirements -- - # # TIMELINE OF EVENTS - * * XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/year> : * * Fraudulent charges processed on unverified XXXX XXXX accounts - XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> : * * XXXX XXXX  support confirms accounts unverified and permanently locked - * * XX/XX/year> : * * Original dispute with Chime denied ( based on dispute list screenshot ) - * * XX/XX/year> : * * Filed new dispute # XXXX with Chime - * * XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX  : * * Chime requested additional documentation - * * XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX  : * * Filing this CFPB complaint -- - # # CONSUMER CONTACT INFORMATION * * Name : * * XXXX XXXX * * Email : XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Account Number : * * ( Your Chime account number mask last 4 digits if preferred : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Dispute Case Number : * * # XXXX -- - # # STATEMENT OF TRUTH I certify that the information provided in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am the account holder named above and have personally reviewed all evidence supporting this complaint. I am filing this complaint in good faith to protect myself and other consumers from XXXX XXXX ' fraudulent practices. \n\n* * Signature : * * XXXX XXXX * * Date : * * XX/XX/year> XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-16T17:22:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"463XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18078721","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-16T16:52:31.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* * # <em>XXXX</em> -- - # # DETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> * * What happened : * * I submitted a formal <em>dispute</em> to Chime ( <em>Dispute</em> # <em>XXXX</em> ) on XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, for unauthorized charges totaling {$1200.00} USD from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> )."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a lender or other company charging your account"]},"sort":[12.784419,"18078721"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18391841","_score":12.184248,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"FORMAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT Improper Debt Collection Practices, Failure to Provide Required Notice, Denial of Account Access, and Unfair/Inaccurate Credit Reporting My legal name has changed. My current legal name is : XXXX XXXX. \nMy prior name ( which may appear on the collection account ) is : XXXX XXXX. \n\nI am submitting this formal complaint regarding improper debt collection practices by Credit Collection Services ( including as shown on my credit reports as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), related to an alleged debt originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of approximately {$350.00}. \n\nAssignment / Transfer of the Debt ( from XXXX XXXX ) This alleged debt was originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX and was then transferred/placed/assigned by XXXX XXXX Group to Credit Collection Services for XXXX XXXX Based on my credit reporting, the account reflects a Date Assigned of XX/XX/year> ( Equifax ). XXXX activity began no later than XX/XX/year>. \n\nLack of Proper Notice After the debt was transferred/placed with the collection agency, I did not receive a single written notice by XXXX mail XXXX email at my current address from the collection agency. I received only automated text messages. \nI began receiving SMS messages from Credit Collection Services on XX/XX/year> and afterward ( XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year> ). The messages directed me to www.ccspayment.com and referenced Reference File XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX message also directed me to XXXX XXXX XXXX  included California License Number : XXXX and phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX ( and in at least one message, ( XXXX ) XXXX ). \n\nThese text messages resembled suspicious or potentially fraudulent communications and did not reasonably appear to be legitimate debt collection notices. No validation letter ( initial notice ), no email, and no mailed correspondence were ever sent to my current address. \n\nDenial of Account XXXX The text messages directed me to an online portal. To access the account, I was required to : XXXX. Enter a reference number XXXX. Enter the ZIP code associated with my address After entering the reference number and then my current ZIP code ( XXXX ), the system repeatedly returned an authentication failed error, as shown in the attached screenshots. \n\nBecause of this error : I could not access the account I could not view or verify the debt I could not make a payment I could not dispute the debt Attempts to Contact the Agency I attempted to contact Credit Collection Services multiple times by phone. For a significant period, their phone line was never answered, despite repeated calls. \n\nBecause the text messages appeared suspicious and I was unable to access the account, I reasonably believed the messages might be fraudulent. \n\nOnly after a collection record appeared on my credit reports did it become clear that this was a legitimate collection agency. At that point, I spent several consecutive hours ( approximately XXXX hours ) attempting to reach a live representative. \n\nOn XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX, I placed a call to ( XXXX ) XXXX that lasted XXXX minutes and XXXX seconds ( call log screenshot attached ). \n\nAdmission of Incorrect Address and ZIP Code When I finally reached an agent, I explained that : I had received no letters or emails I had received only text messages I was unable to access the account online due to authentication failed The agent asked for my name and asked which ZIP code I was entering. The agent then told me which ZIP code their system required for authentication ( it was - XXXX ). I informed the agent that I have not lived at the address associated with that ZIP code for at least XXXX years and that my credit reports have reflected my current address for a long time. I explained that the XXXX outdated address/ZIP code records were the reason I could not authenticate or access the account. The agent then requested my current address and updated it in their system only at that time, after the collection had already been reported. \n\nRefusal to Correct the Error I requested that the collection entry be removed/corrected because : All notices were sent to an incorrect address I received no proper written notice I was denied access due to the agencys internal record/system error I was prevented from paying or disputing the debt The agent stated that they do not care that the address was incorrect and claimed that sending notices to an outdated address still constituted notice. I was told that this was my problem, and the call was terminated by the agency. \n\nLegal Impact As a direct result of the collection agencys actions : I was not properly notified of the debt I was denied access to my account I was prevented from exercising my right to dispute the debt or obtain validation within the required time period A negative collection account was reported to major credit bureaus without a fair opportunity to resolve the matter The collection agencys conduct effectively blocked my ability to timely address the matter, while simultaneously damaging my credit. \n\nViolations This conduct appears to violate federal and California XXXX, including but not limited to : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( required written validation notice ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f ( deceptive and unfair collection practices ) Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( duties of furnishers regarding accuracy and investigation after dispute ) California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. ( including 1788.17 ) California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ( a ) ( accuracy in credit reporting ) California Debt Collection Licensing Act, Cal. Fin. Code 100000 et seq. ( licensed debt collector conduct standards ) Supporting Documentation Attached are all supporting materials, including but not limited to : Complaint Narrative ( CFPB ) - Credit Collection Services Screenshots/PDF showing authentication failed during portal access ; Records/screenshots of text messages and reference file information ; Credit report entries ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX showing the XXXX tradeline, dates, and balance ; Call log evidence ( XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to ( XXXX ) XXXX ) Thank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-31T10:36:11.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"92618","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18391841","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-31T09:30:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 100000 et seq. ( licensed debt collector conduct standards ) Supporting Documentation Attached are all supporting materials, including but not limited to : <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( CFPB ) - Credit Collection Services Screenshots/PDF showing authentication failed during portal access ; Records/screenshots of text messages and reference <em>file</em> information ; Credit report entries ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> showing the <em>XXXX</em> tradeline, dates, and balance ; Call log evidence ( XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX"],"sub_issue":["Didn't receive notice of right to <em>dispute</em>"]},"sort":[12.184248,"18391841"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15188675","_score":11.328699,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative : I am filing this formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding the systemic failures and potential legal violations in the handling of my Apple Card account by Goldman Sachs. The issues I have experienced involve a multi-year pattern of improperly handled disputes, billing errors, and unauthorized charges that have caused significant financial and credit harm. This situation directly reflects the systemic failures in dispute resolution that led to a CFPB this is not a duplicated sub claim It is the total of several billing errors from against Goldman Sachs.\n\n1. Systemic Failures in Dispute Resolution and Investigation : My complaint is not a simple billing dispute ; it outlines a pattern of recurring and protracted problems. I filed numerous disputes through the Apple Card 's \" Report an Issue '' feature between XXXX and XXXX. Despite my repeated attempts, these disputes were not properly investigated or forwarded to Goldman Sachs. \nImproper Dispute Reversals : My account history shows a pattern where a \" Dispute Credit '' was granted, but was later followed by a \" Dispute Reversal '' without clear justification. This practice placed an unfair burden on me and undermined the integrity of the dispute process. I have identified at least 15 dispute reversals that do not appear to have been subsequently refunded or credited back to my account. The total sum of these unreimbursed dispute reversals is {$4900.00}. ( i have the 54 montly statements that proof that situation ) subsequently refunded or credited back : Dispute Reversals Not Subsequently Refunded | Date of Reversal | Original Transaction Description | Amount | Notes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX | Apple Online Store XXXX CA | {$240.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$920.00} | The reversal re-added the charge ; the earlier return was for a slightly dierent amount. No subsequent credit for this exact amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA | {$230.00} | Credit was immediately reversed.\n\nNo subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX AR XXXX | {$280.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$990.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$15.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$2.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$260.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX {$260.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX Online Store XXXX CA | {$240.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FL XXXX | {$610.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  | {$90.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX {$160.00} | Credit was reversed. No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX | {$310.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. \n\n\nInadequate Customer Service : I have spent over 15 hours in support chats, phone only to be transferred between multiple agents and supervisors without resolution. In one instance, a supervisor named XXXX asked, \" what disputes are you referring to? '' after I had already explained the issue multiple times, demonstrating a significant lack of internal communication and case management. This failure to provide a reasonable and effective channel for dispute resolution is a core issue.\n\n2. Documented Billing Errors and Unauthorized Charges : My statements contain clear, documented billing errors that have gone unresolved.\n\nCharges Despite this, I was charged monthly installments of {$53.00} for this item for approximately eight months, including XX/XX/XXXX and then again from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Charging for a product that was cancelled is a severe violation of my consumer rights. \nErroneous \" Cash Back '' Reversal : The XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX statement includes a two charges of {$630.00} described as a \" Cash Back Advance redemption ( REVERSAL ) ''. This appears to be an improper rebilling of a resolved dispute, as the Apple Card does not permit cash advances. This entry suggests a significant accounting error where a resolved dispute was improperly charged to my account again under a misleading description.\n\nFailed Trade-In Credit : I have evidence of a promised {$240.00} trade-in refund that was documented as \" Canceled '' and was never credited to my account. This represents a direct financial loss.\n\n3. Potential Violations of Federal Law : The actions of Goldman Sachs in this case point to violations of several key federal consumer protection laws that the CFPB is mandated to enforce. \nTruth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Regulation Z : TILA requires lenders to investigate disputes and correct billing errors within a specific timeframe. The repeated failure to resolve my disputes over several years, charging for undelivered goods, and not honoring refunds are potential violations of TILA.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : This act requires that information furnished to credit reporting agencies be accurate. By reporting disputed debts as valid and delinquent, Goldman Sachs may have violated the FCRA. I allege that my FICO score dropped from XXXX to XXXX as a result of these actions. \nUnfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) : The collective failures in this case, such as misleadingly rebilling a {$630.00} charge as a \" cash back reversal '' and creating an overly burdensome dispute process, could be considered unfair and deceptive practices that have caused substantial injury.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB conduct a thorough investigation into my account and the systemic issues I have faced. Goldman Sachs 's own response to the CFPB acknowledges a \" processing error '' but dismisses the majority of my claims. The volume and nature of my documented complaints, including specific statement errors and chat logs, make this investigation essential. I am prepared to provide all documentation to support my claims.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-09T11:48:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92231","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15188675","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-08-09T11:20:13.000Z","state":"CA","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 <em>filing</em> this formal <em>complaint</em> with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding the systemic failures and potential legal violations in the handling of my Apple Card account by Goldman Sachs. The issues I have experienced involve a multi-<em>year</em> pattern of improperly handled <em>disputes</em>, billing errors, and unauthorized charges that have caused significant financial and credit harm."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[11.328699,"15188675"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5021577","_score":10.115236,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received the results of a dispute I'd filed around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The results of the dispute stated the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, had verified the information they supplied to XXXX for a student loan were accurate. \n\nIncluded in the results was a payment history for the last two ( 2 ) years. For the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the data supplied to XXXX lists expected payment amounts of seventy-two ( XXXX ) dollars and records that no payments were received for either month. The dataset shows that no payments were due for the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX and that a payment was due for the months thereafter. \n\nNow, the date for which the first payment was allegedly due AFTER XX/XX/XXXX corresponds to the end of an in-school forbearance. The month for which student loan reapayments began is listed as XX/XX/XXXX. However, a letter from XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX states the student loans were in forbearance until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A letter from early in that yearXXXX XX/XX/XXXX lists the end-date for the in-school forbearance as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A first statement is then generated on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a current due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFor each subsequent statement, CFPB interpretation of Regulation Z requires the statement date to be the same date each month with no more than a four ( 4 ) variation from the date established per the first bill. Moreover, the minimum duration between the statement date is to be no less than twenty-one ( XXXX ) days under 12 CFR 1026.2 \" Definitions and Rules. '' XXXX XXXX acknowledges this in some facet in a letter from research and remediation associate XXXX XXXX : \" Please note that our office is only required to provide you at least a XXXX grace period between the statement notice and the due date of your monthly payment installments. '' The date of this letter is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In direct contrast to this knowledge, the duration of statement dates from time of repayment transfer to new loan servicer and/or charge-off was consistently less than XXXX ( XXXX ) days. Thus, XXXX XXXX consistently violated its own \" policies '' and was habitually non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2. Moreover, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly made dubious claims of payment being required during priods for which a statement was NOT generated. This directly contradicts the terms of the MPN which requires staements to be provided even during periods of forbearance and/or deferment, which encompasses in-school forbearances, in-school deferments, disaster forbearances, etc. \n\nAny month in which XXXX XXXX furnished payment history data that is/was non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2, is non-reportable by a CRA and can not be included in a consumer file because it compels the CRA to report consumer history that violates my protections under 12 CFR Part 1026. As consequence the CRA would then be reporting data that is patently inaccurate resulting in CRA violations of the FCRA as amended and enforced under 12 CFR 1022, at minimum. Yet, XXXX continues to include this patently inaccurate data in my credit file, even when portions of that dataset for the same account/tradeline contradict other portions of the dataset for the same account/tradeline. Contradictory information is patently inaccurate and non-reportable by a CRA. Moreover, if supplied in whole ( or part ) as contradictory from a data-furnisher, it is patently unverifiable -- the data is patently false, thus violating 12 CFR Part 1022. \n\nAny payment history that results from inaccurate data is to be removed because that data is inaccurate and/or unverifiable. Documentation supplied by the consumer in a consumer complaint that demonstrates the data is inaccuarate, becuase it contradicts other pieces of data on which a data-furnisher 's assertion is made, necessitates removal without the consent of the data furnisher because it is patently inaccurate and continues to harm a consumer during a CRA \" investigation ''. The threshold for such instances is supplying the CRAs with information generated by the data-furnisher, that directly contradicts the information the CRA has on-file per the account/tradeline of the data-furnisher. Typically data that refutes the data within a consumer file is provided as a statement on the data-furnisher 's letterhead. \n\nIn examining the payment history data table supplied by XXXX itself there are a serious number of inaccuracies for which XXXX can not reasonably construe as \" accurate '' given the documentation that I have supplied, documentation supplied, on the data-furnisher 's letterhead, that directly refutes other pieces of data within the data-set for the XXXX accounts/tradelines for the same periods. Additionally XXXX knows the data supplied by XXXX is inaccurate and unverifiable because they removed some of the offending data between reports generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Evidence of the rroneous data still propagating past XXXX XX/XX/XXXX include months showing payment history charge-off status codes, such as ( L ) or ( CO ), that can not possibly exist becuase XXXX has clearly registered \" no data available '' in the corresponding history table. Alleged CO status periods are boxed by CO monthsfor which the CO status has corresponding \" no data available ''. Conseuquentially the CO status indicators for months in-between ( and inclusive of ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are unverifiable because they have no identified action in the dataset that would warrant a CO action. Months for which accounts were in an in-school forbearance, acknowledged by XXXX XXXX as such in multiple letters, are recorded as having scheduled payment amounts while other months encompassing the same forbearance/deferment period show no scheduled payment amounts. One such case is the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, for which it has already been stated and corroborated by XXXX XXXX that the account was in an in-school forbearance status, but reflect in the XXXX dataset as a payment scheduled and owing, while periods XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX show none. Other examples include dates for which XXXX records show payments were made, most of which were in excess of the scheduled payment, but show zero ( 0 ) decrease or increase in balance : the balance for a subsequent month remains identical to that of the previous month. Finally newer months in the XXXX history have corresponding last payment dates that are older than that of prior months. For example the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, while the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a ldate of last payment of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Both of these stand in stark contast to XX/XX/XXXX that shows a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAt best the dataset housed by the CRAs for the XXXX accounts is incohate. Be it due to nascency or flat-out incoherence, the data can not possibly meet the reprting requirements under the FCRA as implemented in 12 CFR Part 1022.\n\nI have filed nearly one-hundred ( 100 ) complaints with the CFPB regarding these issues, many of which have been transmitted to both the CRAs AND XXXX XXXX, thus satisfying my responsibilities to ensure factual accuracy of my credit files as permitted under the FCRA. Because many of these CFPB complaints have also been transmitted ( in writing ) to the data furnisher, I have also submitted 623 complaints directly to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX has received the documentation I've supplied to the CRA disputes, AND the CFPB complaints, yet has furnished the same erroneous data to the CRAs and susbsequently, or even simultaneously, submitted responses to the CFPB complaints that contradict, and in some cases directly refute, the information supplied in the dataset to the CRA. Therefore, XXXX XXXX knows, OR SHOULD KNOW there is a serious problem with their records and likely have refused to admit the failures for fear of consequences akin to those outlined in prior XXXX XXXX consent agreements they've previously enterd into with the CFPB for poor lending practics, poor billing practices, and non-compliance as a data furnisher when reporting consumer account statuses to the CRAs. Thus, despite receiving numerous XXXX  disputes, and FCRA disputes, XXXX XXXX has chosen not to fulfill its responsibilities as a data-furnisher under 12 CFR 1022.20 - 1022.43 \" Duties of Furnishers of Information ''. \n\nLikewise, the CRAs have received my complaints and the obviously erroneous/inaccurate/unverifiable data is perpetuated due to the CRA reliance upon the data furnisher instead of independent review of consumer dipsute narrative and accompanying documentation. Thus, it would the CRAs continue to perpetuate patently inaccurate data within my credit file that harms me as a consumer with current and potential lenders for products ranging from education financing, automobile financing, housing, etc. The fact is, data generated by a data furnisher that is non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026 in general is not reportable as a part of a consumer file. Yet, the CRAs, in this case XXXX, continue to use the blanketed statement \" the information was being reported as accurate '' becuase the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX, had verified its accuarcy. This clearly indicates XXXX has repeatedly failed in its responsibilities under FCRA to conuduct an investigation and repeatedly abridged my rights of due process under the FCRA by simply processing disputes, translating them into an eOSCAR code ( not necessarily reflecting the correct reason for the dispute ). The CRAs, here XXXX, has then submitted the dispute to the data-furnisher, to leave it to the data-furnisher ( or its computer system ) to verify the accuracy of the data. The woeful ignorance of the CRAs in even refusing to conduct a cursory examination of the documentation, or to take steps when the data-furnisher 's own statements contradict the information supplied by the data-furnisher, indicates the CRAs, in this case XXXX, knows OR SHOULD KNOW there is inaccurate information, and has thus knowingly and of their own volition chosen to abdicate their responsibilities as outlined in 12 CFR Part 1022 pursuant to the FCRA as amended. \n\nPrecedent at the Federal level indicates that I have cause to file legitimate claims within Federal courts to obtain relief, for which I am allowed to seek damages from XXXX AND the CRAs for their roles, in what coloquially would be referred to as a s-show, in what constitues a willful abdication of responsibility, integrity, and adherence to law. I am therefore demanding the CRAs, here XXXX, remove the accounts/tradelines for both XXXX student loan accounts.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-12-18T15:18:10.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5021577","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-12-18T15:12:42.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On or around <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> I received the results of a <em>dispute</em> I'd <em>filed</em> around <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>. The results of the <em>dispute</em> stated the data furnisher, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, had verified the information they supplied to <em>XXXX</em> for a student loan were accurate. \n\nIncluded in the results was a payment history for the last two ( 2 ) years."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing <em>problem</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[10.115236,"5021577"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22083328","_score":9.391159,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"The company ( Wells Fargo ) responses are total XXXX!! They are not addressing the issues of their mismanagement of my account. There are 2 significant errors that lead to this entire situation and they are 100 % rsponsible for those errors, MISAPPROPRIATION OF MY PROPERLY SUBMITTED P & I FUNDS and A FRAUDULENTLY SUBMITTED COURT FILING.\n\n1 ) They redirected one of the payments I made for the monthly P & I to a third party company who had no business or rights to receive those funds. This created a situation where every payment I made after that transaction was \" late '' and they charged me late fees for it for 3 years, while I disputed the transaction. That payment was NOT DUE to the 3rd party becasue they did NOT OWN the property during this time and my funds were illegally sent to them. Wells Fargo redirected my timely payment from XX/XX/XXXX. The payment was alledgedly owed for XX/XX/XXXX, but the 3rd party transferred ownership to Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, so they clearly did not own the property nor have any right to any sort of payment. There is a purchase contract that proves this as well as Wells Fargo 's Billing statement from XX/XX/XXXX that also confirms the ownership transfer. Wells Fargo misappropriated my properly submitted P & I funds to a Non-Associated 3rd party wihich, in my humble opinion, is THEFT.\n\n2 ) Wells Fargo began charging me for a FORCED Home Owners Insurance Policy in XX/XX/XXXX. This was 100 % UNNECESSARY, as I had full and complete coverage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for 100 % of the time in question. I proved this to Wells Fargo with the assistance of XXXX XXXX and there is NO DOUBT that I was properly insured for the time period in question. I have emails from Wells Fargo CONFIRMING my XXXX XXXX insurance, but Wells Fargo inappropriately used this false billing to \" manufacture '' some sort of billing shortage, as they took my monthly P & I payments, which I made 100 % ON TIME, and paid this bogus and totally unnecessary forced insurance policy premiums for 9 months.\n\nThese 2 noted factors are 100 % accurate and easily provable using Wells Fargo 's own billing statements. I have pointed this out to them numerous times and they refuse to acknowledge the truth. Their Office of Executive Management, who is reviewing all this, is either corruprt or just plain stupid. Anyone with 1 oz. of common sense can see that they are 100 % wrong in these 2 key issues.\n\n3 ) This is probably the most aggregious action that Wells Fargo has taken. They used these 2 totally false scenarios, noted above, to file a FALSE FORECLOSURE on my property. The \" evidence '' they have submitted to the 53rd District Court for this foreclosure is 100 % false and a complete and total fabrication of the actual facts. THIS IS A FRAUDULENT LAWSUIT/FORECLOSURE!!\n\nThey have blocked me from making payments during this process and created an actual arears situation, which I have tried to resolve with their Home Preservation team, but they are extremely uncooperative. \nI am a 100 % XXXX Veteran and I swear on my Oath that these are the TRUE facts, 100 %, and I will not be bullied by Wells Fargo when they are in the wrong. Their Executive Office is not investigating anything and they refuse to acknowledge their significant error in this matter. They are submitting a bunch of mumbo jumbo XXXX as evidence, that they are correct and they are clouding the actual REAL issues in this matter.\n\nWells Fargo is making a MOCKERY of this whole appeals process and they are not participating in good faith to resolve these issues, which could easily be fixed.\n\nThey are 100 % at fault and have filed fraudulent court documents!! They are basically trying to steal my home or force me into a situation where I owe them a significantly increased amount of money. The loan in question was a simple HELOC loan with the noted 3rd party vendor. They did purchase this loan and I believe the reason they are pursuing all this made up XXXX is becasue the rate on the original note in question is only 2.61 %. They are losing money on this loan and they are trying to change that with these activities. I have a letter from their Home Preservation Dept which basically confirms/indicates that the 2.61 % rate is a problem.\n\nI WILL NOT QUIT FIGHTING WELLS FARGO BECAUSE THEY ARE 100 % WRONG and I WILL NOT BE A VICTIM!!\n\nSupport info Wells Fargo continues to refuse to provide useful and accurate responses to the new problems I have noted in my CFPB complaints. They are simply replying with the same inaaccurate information they have submitted previously. They have not personally contatced me in over 120 days and are not accurately addressing my concerns or working to resolve the numerous issues I have noted in my complaint ( s ).\n\nThe situation with their inaccuracies during the payment and insurance/escrow process are fixable, if they would simply acknowledge their errors and correct them. This has gone on for over a year and could have been resolved in the first 60 days ( XX/XX/XXXX ) if they would fix the problems they caused. I have noted that thier own billing documents 100 % fully support my claims of inproprities in their billing and escrow process. They accepted, then misapplied 10 of my P & I payments and manufactured a scenario where I appeared to be deficient in my payments, but that is 100 % inaccurate. They used my P & I payments for other than standard or necessary activities. If they correct the 2 main issues regarding my payments, this whole issue could be resolved. They refuse to even acknowledge any responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on them. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and they misapplied these payments and this is NOT disputable!! I have submitted the prove to them previously. They need to fix that.\n\nAs a result of their noncompliance with my requests for repair, I am now filing a Motion to Dismiss their fraudulent Foreclose lawsuit. I will use thier own documents to prove to the court that their lawsuit is false, based on the misrepresentation/distortion of the facts. I will also file a counter lawsuit for repair of the damages I have incurred as a result of their inappropriate actions. They have 14 days from me filing this complaint ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with CFPB to actually reach out to me and in good faith work to resolve the issues they have created in this fiasco. I am a 100 % XXXX Veteran with XXXX years of service to my country and I have rights and deserve to be treated properly by Wells Fargo XXXX in a fair and just manner. They have refused/ignored my requests for resolution to this matter for months and I will tolerate it no longer. My motion to dismiss based on fraudulent information/documentation will be filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWells Fargo is not addressing or properly responding to the issues I am raising. They continue to resubmit the same response and info that is false and not approriate or accurate to the issues I am raising. Nothing can be resolved if Wells Fargo will not properly address their errors and work to resolve them. To date, they are simply repeating the same inaccurate lies. I will not go away until they work to address and resolve the 100 % accurate issues i am presenting. They have lied on multiple issues and committed fraud by submitting a false petition to the court in regard to the foreclosure lawsuit. \nMy points are 100 % accurate and Wells Fargo continues to ignore them. I NEVER missed a payment and they used my P & I payments for nofarious purposes. \n\nWells Fargo continues to fail to properly respond to my legitimate complaint about their conflict resolution process. I have asked for the complaint to be escalated and reviewed by their legal department and I have requested information from phone calls that has yet to be provided. They have not properly responded to any of this. They are blatantly trying to abuse this process and are failing to address their inappropriate actions, which I have documented with significant proof ( ACTUAL BILLING STATEMENTS ). I will continue to file complaints until they actually respond, in detail, to the information provded in this complaint. They are not above the law, but they are certainly acting like they are and it is disgusting. Wells Fargo STOLE my P & I payments and used them for inappropriate purposes other than payments and then created a false narrative in order to file a Ficticious Foreclosure Lawsuit. They have provided all sorts of nonsensical information that does not apply to my complaint, of which the details ar enoted below. Wells Fargo is refusing to acknowledge their accountability in the issues I have presented. They have lied and created false scenarios that do not address my complaint. They filed a foreclosure lawsuit against me using false data, false numbers and created a scenario that looked like I was at fault or some sort of dead beat, but it is all lies. Now they are dodging any sort of real response by repeating the same lies. They are creating a paperwork smoke screen that is designed to direct attention away from their fraudulent activities and the filing of a Foreclosure lawsuit based on false data and these lies. The CFPB is not holding them accountable and they are simply lying to get out of doing the right thing. I will continue to file complaints until they actually acknowledge what occurred and correct their mistakes. I have proven that they misappropriated funds that I sent to them and used them for inappropriate activities on my account. They charged me for services that I did not need and then did not refund the money and claimed that I was in default. This is absolutely false and thier own documents, billing statements, prove that I am 100 % correct and they continue to hide the truth by dragging in non-sensical issues like XXXX XXXX. This was a simple HELOC that they bought from a 3rd party and not a government supported mortgage. Never was, but they are trying to say it is and ignoring the facts of what they have done to this 100 % XXXX Veteran after I served my country for 30 years.. I have asked them to escalate this to a higher authority and they claim to have no higher authority than these mindless robots who just keep repeating the same lies. I can and have proven, using thier own billing documents, that they misappropriated funds that I sent in to pay the P & I on my loan. I never missed a payment, they simply rerouted my payments to false \" entities '' and then wanted more money from me. Regardless, they mis-used funds that I sent to them and created a false deficit and are hiding behind a bunch of data that does not even apply to the situation I want addressed. I would like to hear from their Legal Department and see what they have to say about the mis-appropriation of my funds and the lies the Executive Office is putting forth. The bottom line is that I sent in 100 % of my payments. They used those payments for other that approriate activities. I had Home Owners insurance 100 % of my time with them and I, along with XXXX XXXX, have proven this.They took my P & I payments to pay some outrageous totally unnecessary insurance policy claiming that I had no insurance at all. They have most certainly broken the law, in my opinion, with some of this fund redistribution activity and filing a Lawsuit using this false data. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and that is indisputable and easily provable. They have recorded customer service phone calls that I made to them, that back up my allegations and they won't acknowledge or provide the call data. They lied to a District Court to get a Foreclosure Lawsuit filed against me and used false \" evidence '' to make it appear that I was in the rears, I was NOT!! I will continue to file CFPB complaints against them until I get some resolution in this matter and I am notifying XXXX XXXX about their illegal activities toward a Highly Decorated 100 % XXXX Veteran of the XXXX XXXX. I want a response from their Legal Department in regard to their activites, including filing a Fraudulent Lawsuit in District Court. I can prove my points to be 100 % accurate using their own billing statements and I can prove they are lying. Wells Fargo is corrupt, in my opinion and experience, and they have been in trouble with the government and legal authorites many times prior to his instance. They pay fines and then go right back to thier past activites. It's time for it to stop!!","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-11T18:26:47.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"786XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22083328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-11T18:19:13.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I will continue to <em>file</em> <em>complaints</em> until they actually respond, in detail, to the information provded in this <em>complaint</em>. They are not above the law, but they are certainly acting like they are and it is disgusting. Wells Fargo STOLE my P & I payments and used them for inappropriate purposes other than payments and then created a false <em>narrative</em> in order to <em>file</em> a Ficticious Foreclosure Lawsuit."]},"sort":[9.391159,"22083328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21473153","_score":8.784756,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Conversation with XXXX My PayPal is XXXX yrs old and since XXXX I started getting blocked and having to prove myself such as my identity, address, and what \" business '' I am when I'm not a business. I'm a individual that makes money from home doing various things. Anyway I got limited Dec and fixed, again like XXXX or XXXX then again likeXX/XX/XXXX days ago or so. The most recent one I did all the review stuff and then the reviewer said I didn't do everything and that I had open complaints against me in resolution center I needed to resolve and that they couldn't complete my review. Anyway, I don't have any complaints Against me but I do have XXXX against XXXX. I called and talked to an agent and he was lik \" I don't know what the heck they got going on. I see you don't got any open complaints and you provided all the info we needed. I'm gon na write a ticket to the back so they can fix this \" anyway, next morning my account was fixed. Yay! But when they denied my review for the \" open complaint '' they also moved my sale limit back down to XXXX when I barely just got it to XXXX the month before. Since this was under false circumstances I spoke with a XXXX and he said he could put in a request for an increase for me and explain the situation. He asked me how much I thought I needed and I told him maybe XXXX. Anyway, he did the ticket for me and I got off the phone and the next morning I wake up to a big red bar saying \" after a review we have decided to permanently limit your account '' ... So unjustified, I spoke with a rep yesterday and she was confused too and said she would put in a ticket to have them look at it and try to fix it and also a request for a manager call back. Still no word and still blocked. \n\nThat sounds like an incredibly frustrating nightmare. Having a XXXXyear-old account shut down right after a manager promised to help you is completely unfair, especially when you have jumped through every hoop they put in front of you. \n\nHere is the reality of what likely happened behind the scenes. PayPal relies heavily on automated risk-management algorithms, and those bots often lack nuance and override human agents. \n\nBecause you make money from home doing varied work, like getting paid for completing tasks through Discord groups, your incoming payments can sometimes look unpredictable to a computer. Even though the previous flags on your account were cleared, your internal \" risk score '' was likely still highly sensitive. When the manager submitted a ticket to jump your limit from {$300.00} to {$2000.00} or {$3000.00}, it almost certainly triggered a hard-coded security protocol. The automated system saw a sudden, massive request for a volume increase on an account that had just been under review, panicked, and issued an automatic permanent limitation. \n\nSince front-line agents and even lower-level managers often do not have the system clearance to overturn a permanent algorithmic ban, here are the most effective ways to escalate this : How to Escalate a Permanent Limitation File a CFPB or BBB Complaint : This is often the most successful route for unjustified bans. Filing a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) or the Better Business Bureau ( BBB ) forces PayPal to route your case to their Executive Escalations team. A real human with actual authority will have to manually review the account and respond to the regulatory body. \n\nXXXX XXXX Escalations Directly : You can sometimes bypass standard customer service by emailing PayPal 's executive team directly ( e.g., reaching out to the office of the CEO or executive review emails ). These teams handle high-level disputes and have the power to lift permanent limitations if they see the bots made an error. \n\nGive the Current Ticket XXXX Hours : Since the representative you spoke with yesterday put in a ticket and requested a manager callback, give them a short window to resolve it. If you don't hear back within XXXX hours, assume the automated system blocked their request and move straight to filing a complaint. \n\nDid the red banner or the email you received mention a specific Acceptable Use Policy ( AUP ) violation, or did it just give a generic explanation about \" potential risk ''? \n\n\" Were no longer offering PayPal services for this account Sometimes we cant process account activity for a variety of reasons, including local laws, our policies, or the policies of our partner banks and card networks. \n\n\n\nBased on the information we have today, there was activity on this account that we can not support. \n\n\n\nWhat can you do with your account? \n\n\n\nYour account has been permanently deactivated. However, you can still view your transaction history, download account statements, or request copies of your data. \n\n\n\nBefore you can withdraw or transfer any remaining funds from your account, we need to hold them for up toXX/XX/XXXX days to cover things like chargebacks or other financial liabilities. \n\n\n\nWell review the account and email you when funds are '' available. \n\nThat is the absolute most frustrating, boilerplate message you could possibly receive. It essentially confirms that a computer system slammed the door shut and slapped a generic label on it. \n\nHere is the blunt translation of what that email actually means : \" Activity we can not support '' is PayPal 's ultimate catch-all phrase. It does not mean you actually did anything illegal or broke a specific rule. It just means their risk-management algorithm decided the combination of recent reviews, the sudden limit increase request, and the varied nature of your income sources crossed an invisible threshold. \n\nThe XXXX Hold is their standard operating procedure for permanent limitations. They hold the money to ensure no buyers file chargebacks or disputes against you in the months following the account closure. \n\nBecause you received this specific, final-tier ban message, standard customer service agents over the phone can no longer help you. They are looking at a screen that tells them the decision is final, and they do not have the security clearance to override the \" back office '' or the algorithm. Even if that manager calls you back, their hands are likely tied by the system now. \n\nYour only path forward is to force the issue out of the automated system and onto the desk of a high-level executive who has the authority to actually read your XXXX history and overturn the algorithm. \n\nYour Immediate Action Plan Stop Calling Regular Support : It will only waste your time and raise your XXXX XXXX. The front-line reps can not lift this specific type of ban. \n\nFile a CFPB Complaint : Go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau website ( consumerfinance.gov ) and file a formal complaint against PayPal. State clearly that your XXXXyear-old account was permanently limited immediately after a manager initiated a limit increase, and that the limitation is completely unjustified.\n\nFile a BBB Complaint : Do the same thing with the Better Business Bureau. PayPal has a dedicated corporate escalation team that strictly handles responding to BBB and CFPB complaints. This forces a real, senior human to investigate the timeline of events. \n\nDo you have a significant amount of money trapped in the account right now under that XXXX hold? \n\nOk I'm on crpb made an account. Says choose product? Checking again cd prepaid etc You will want to select the category for money transfers and digital wallets, as that is exactly how the CFPB classifies PayPal.\n\nHere is the exact path to choose on the form : Product : Select \" Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service '' Sub-product : Select \" Mobile or digital wallet '' Issue : Select \" Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account '' ( or \" Other service problem '' if that fits better, but the first XXXX is usually the most accurate for unjustified account bans ). \n\nFrom there, it will ask you for the company name, where you can search for and select PayPal. \n\nWhen filling out the narrative or description box, keep your explanation clear, concise, and professional. Make sure to emphasize these key points : Your account is XXXX years old and has always been in good standing.\n\nYou recently provided all requested documentation to verify your identity and activity, which an agent confirmed was sufficient.\n\nThe permanent limitation was triggered automatically immediately after a manager submitted a ticket to increase your limits.\n\nYou are seeking an executive review to overturn the automated limitation and release the 120-day hold on your funds.\n\n\" Are you able to store a balance in the digital wallet account that lets you add or withdraw funds to use for purchases or payments? '' You should answer \" Yes ''.\n\nPayPal functions exactly like this. Even if you have it linked directly to a bank account or credit card, the platform itself is designed to hold a \" PayPal Balance. '' Because you can receive money, store it in the account, and then either withdraw it to your bank or use it directly for online purchases, it meets the exact definition of what the CFPB is asking about. \nXXXX It said did you request info and I said yes. Now put \" I requested the reasoning as to why they permanently blocked my account '' or what? \n\nYes, what you suggested hits the nail on the head! \n\nTo make it sound even stronger and give the CFPB investigators the exact context they need, I recommend expanding on it just a bit so it highlights PayPal 's failure to give you a real answer. \n\nYou can copy and paste this exact phrasing : \" I requested the specific reasoning and policy details as to why my XXXXyear-old account was permanently limited. I also requested an explanation as to why this automated ban was triggered immediately after a manager initiated a limit increase on my behalf. The company refused to provide a specific reason and only issued a generic, automated response. '' This wording is perfect because it shows the CFPB that you tried to get a straight answer from PayPal, but they stonewalled you with a boilerplate template. \n\nLet me know what the next confusing question on the form is! \n\nWhat happened? \n\nDescribe what happened, and well send your comments to the companies involved. \n\nInclude dates, amounts, and actions that were taken by you or the company. \n\nDo not include personal information, such as your name, account number, address, Social Security number, etc. We may ask for some of this information later, to help the company identify you and your account. \n\nHere is a draft you can copy and paste directly into that box. It is written to be strictly factual, outlines the timeline clearly, and highlights exactly where PayPals automated system made an error, all while making sure your personal information is left out. \n\nCopy and paste the text below : I am filing a complaint regarding the unjustified permanent limitation of my XXXX-year-old account and the subsequent XXXXday hold placed on my funds. \n\nStarting in XXXX of last year, my account was subjected to several standard review requests to verify my identity and the nature of my home-based income. I complied with all requests, and my account was restored each time, most recently in XXXX. \n\nApproximately XXXX days ago, my account was limited again. The initial reasoning given was that I had unresolved complaints against me. I contacted customer support and the agent confirmed this was an error on the company 's end ( I had no complaints against me, only XXXX dispute I had filed against a merchant ). The agent submitted a ticket, and my account was restored the next morning. \n\nHowever, upon restoring my account, the company unjustly lowered my monthly sales limit to {$300.00}, down from the {$800.00} limit I had secured the month prior. I spoke with a manager about this discrepancy. The manager agreed the reduction was unjustified and offered to submit an internal ticket to increase my limit to $ XXXX {$3000.00} to reflect my actual needs. \n\nThe morning after the manager submitted this ticket on my behalf, I received an automated notice stating my account had been \" permanently deactivated '' due to \" activity on this account that we can not support, '' and that my funds would be held forXX/XX/XXXXdays. \n\nI spoke with another representative yesterday who expressed confusion over the ban, as my account was in good standing. They submitted a request for a manager callback and an escalation, but the permanent limitation remains active. \n\nI have maintained this account in good standing for XXXX decades. The permanent limitation was clearly triggered by an automated system error responding to the manager 's limit increase request, not by any violation of policy on my part. I am requesting an immediate executive review by a human agent to overturn this automated ban, restore my account, and release the XXXX hold on my funds.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T06:14:32.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"81401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21473153","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-04-22T05:51:12.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Copy and paste the text below : I am <em>filing</em> a <em>complaint</em> regarding the unjustified permanent limitation of my <em>XXXX</em>-<em>year</em>-old account and the subsequent XXXXday hold placed on my funds. \n\nStarting in <em>XXXX</em> of last <em>year</em>, my account was subjected to several standard review requests to verify my identity and the nature of my home-based income. I complied with all requests, and my account was restored each time, most recently in <em>XXXX</em>. \n\nApproximately <em>XXXX</em> days ago, my account was limited again."]},"sort":[8.784756,"21473153"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17209756","_score":8.485841,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In reviewing my recent credit reports from the national consumer reporting agencies, I discovered multiple accounts reported inaccurately, inconsistently, and without proper validation or substantiation. I am filing this complaint because the credit bureaus and furnishers involved appear to have failed to comply with the accuracy, reinvestigation, and documentation requirements set forth under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite attempts to request validation and clarification, I have not received original documentation proving the accuracy or legitimacy of the disputed accounts. This situation continues to cause significant harm to my creditworthiness, access to financial services, and overall consumer reputation. \n\nBackground Summary The disputed accounts include a combination of revolving credit, installment loans, and collection accounts that appear across one or more of the major bureaus. The items in question contain errors regarding reporting status, delinquency history, balance, and ownership, and in some cases, they appear only on one bureauraising concerns about inconsistent data transmission or unverified furnishing practices. Additionally, several accounts show contradictory statuses such as paid yet also marked as derogatory or collection/charge-off, which is contradictory under FCRA 602As requirement of maximum possible accuracy.\n\nThe following accounts are specifically in dispute due to questionable validation or inconsistent reporting : A collection/charge-off entry reported under the furnisher name XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$360.00}. \n\nA derogatory tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX, closed XX/XX/XXXX, showing a balance of {$8300.00} on TransUnion only. \n\nA collection item reported by XXXX XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$2200.00}, appearing only on TransUnion. \n\nA closed XXXX XXXX revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. \n\nA closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. \n\nA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account closed in XXXX that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-year reporting period allowed by law. \n\nChronological Summary of What Happened Over the past several months, I noticed derogatory reporting patterns affecting my credit file. I began by pulling updated credit reports from Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to compare entries. Upon review, I found multiple inconsistencies between the three bureaus regarding the same accountsdifferences in status, balance, and date of last activity. Some accounts appear only on one bureau, suggesting that data was never validated or uniformly transmitted. This disparity demonstrates a breakdown in accuracy procedures required by FCRA 607 ( B ), which obligates consumer reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of data in each file. \n\nI then filed formal written disputes with the credit bureaus, identifying each questionable account and requesting documentation to validate the information. Specifically, I asked for : The method of verification used to confirm accuracy. \n\nThe original contracts or legal instruments authorizing the reporting. \n\nThe data sources, system timestamps, and investigation notes supporting verification. \n\nConfirmation of whether each verification was conducted through e-Oscar, manual review, or third-party submission. \n\nCopies of communications between the bureau and the furnisher regarding my disputes. \n\nDespite those specific requests, I received only generic confirmation letters stating that the items were verified or remain. No detailed evidence, signed agreements, or verifiable audit trails were provided. This violates the intent of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which requires the bureau to disclose the method of verification when requested by a consumer after a reinvestigation. Without such transparency, there is no assurance that any true investigation occurred.\n\nImpact of the Failures to Investigate and Verify The continuing publication of unverified or inconsistent data has negatively impacted my credit profile and creditworthiness. These inaccuracies affect my ability to qualify for favorable loan terms, access housing or auto financing, and maintain fair insurance rates. The damage is both reputational and financial. Moreover, by failing to provide documentation showing chain of custody, assignment, and ownership for debt-purchased accounts, the furnishers appear to be reporting without legal authority or validation, violating FDCPA 809 ( b ) and 807 ( 8 ), which prohibit communication of unverified or false credit information.\n\nDetailed Account Analysis 1. XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item appears only on TransUnion and not on Experian or Equifax. The account is listed as a collection with a past-due balance of {$360.00} and a status of derogatory. There is no clear indication of the original creditor, and the absence of parallel reporting across bureaus indicates lack of validation. This may constitute reporting without verified documentation, violating FCRA 607 ( B ). Furthermore, the failure to provide evidence of a consumer contract or proof of assignment suggests possible data furnishing without permissible purpose. \n\n2. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item is labeled Derogatory with a balance of {$8300.00}. It appears only on TransUnion, not on Experian or Equifax. The reporting of an account on a single bureau more than six years after closure raises serious compliance concerns. The Fair Credit Reporting Act limits the reporting of negative information to seven years from the original delinquency date ( FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) ). Given the closure date, this entry may soon exceed the legal reporting period. The bureau has not supplied any proof that it verified this account through manual review or obtained any original contract from the creditor. \n\n3. XXXX XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Past Due {$2200.00} ) XXXX XXXX is a well-known debt buyer rather than an original creditor. Debt buyers are required under FDCPA 809 ( b ) to validate ownership and the full chain of assignment before collecting or furnishing data. The bureau has not produced any purchase agreement, assignment documentation, or chain-of-custody evidence showing that XXXX XXXX legally owns or controls the debt. Continued reporting of such unverifiable data constitutes deceptive practice under 807 ( 8 ) ( communicating credit information which is known or should be known to be false ). \n\n4. XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid, Late History Reported ) This account shows as paid yet reflects multiple late payments ( 30-day 2, 60-day 1 ). Such inconsistencies misrepresent the consumers payment behavior. No documentation proving that these late entries are accurate has been provided. If the bureau relies solely on automated furnisher responses through e-Oscar, that does not qualify as a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ). The continued presence of those delinquencies, despite the account being fully satisfied, creates a misleading and punitive record. \n\n5. XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid ) This account shows a XXXX balance but retains delinquency notations inconsistent with final payment records. It should either reflect paid as agreed or be removed altogether if no documentation can substantiate the late payments. This inconsistency may misrepresent repayment behavior and violates the principle of maximum accuracy under 607 ( B ). \n\n6. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) The reporting of a XXXX0-day late mark from XXXX appears to exceed the allowable reporting duration if based on a delinquency prior to that date. The bureaus have not produced the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), which is critical for compliance with FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ). If the DOFD precedes XXXX, this account should have already aged off the file. \n\nDiscrepancies Between Bureaus The most alarming issue is the inconsistency of these accounts between bureaus. Some appear only on TransUnion, others on Experian or Equifax. The presence of certain accounts on one report but not another suggests unvalidated data exchange, incomplete communication, or improper furnishing under FCRA 623 ( a ). Bureaus are obligated to ensure that data supplied by furnishers is uniform, accurate, and reflective of verified records. These inconsistencies create a materially misleading representation of my credit history. \n\nFailure to Provide a Reasonable Reinvestigation The credit bureaus responses to prior disputes consisted of brief statements indicating that the accounts were verified or updated. None included documentation of the verification process, identity of the furnisher representative, or audit logs demonstrating that human review took place. This approach relies heavily on automated e-Oscar codes, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously flagged as inadequate for full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ). A proper reinvestigation requires actual evidence, not an electronic confirmation code.\n\nAudit Trail and Data Source Transparency I have repeatedly requested an audit trail showing how the disputed data was obtained, transmitted, and verified. This includes user IDs, timestamps, and system logs indicating when furnishers reported updates. None of this information has been supplied. The absence of a documented trail impairs accountability and violates FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), which grants consumers the right to all information in their files and the sources of that information. \n\nPattern of Procedural Negligence The lack of validation, incomplete reinvestigation, and inconsistent data maintenance demonstrate a systemic problem in the bureaus compliance procedures. The bureaus appear to rely on furnishers data without adequate oversight or verification of original documentation. Such practices undermine the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in consumer reporting. Each of these failures compounds harm to the consumer and perpetuates false narratives about creditworthiness.\n\nViolations and Legal Provisions Implicated FCRA 602 ( A ) Failure to maintain fair and accurate reporting.\n\nFCRA 607 ( B ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to disclose method of verification.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure of furnishers to report disputed information as disputed.\n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) Reporting negative information beyond the seven-year limit.\n\nFDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Communicating credit information known or should be known to be false.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to validate debt prior to continued reporting.\n\nConsumer Harm and Emotional Distress Due to these inaccuracies, I have faced credit denials, higher interest rates, and emotional distress caused by repeated rejections and fear of being viewed as a high-risk borrower. The persistence of these derogatory entries undermines the integrity of my financial profile and violates the trust consumers are entitled to under federal consumer protection laws. Repeated attempts to resolve the issue directly with the bureaus have proven futile due to generic automated responses and lack of transparency. \n\nRequested Resolution I am seeking the following corrective actions : A full, manual reinvestigation of each disputed account, conducted in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ), including contact with furnishers to obtain original documentation.\n\nWritten disclosure of the method of verification used for each account, including data sources, audit logs, and communications with furnishers.\n\nImmediate removal or suppression of any account that can not be validated with original signed contracts or proof of ownership.\n\nWritten confirmation that the bureaus have notified all furnishers of the disputes and that unverifiable data will not be reinserted unless certified under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nUpdated copies of my credit reports reflecting all deletions or corrections within five business days of resolution.\n\nAssurance that any account determined unverifiable will be deleted permanently and not re\n-reported without certified validation.\n\nBroader Implications and Need for Oversight This case reflects a broader issue within the credit reporting system, where consumers disputes are frequently handled through automated codes without genuine examination of original evidence. Such procedural shortcuts create systemic inaccuracy, leaving consumers with long-lasting harm. The FCRA and FDCPA were enacted precisely to prevent such negligence, yet their enforcement depends on oversight from agencies such as the CFPB.\n\nBy submitting this complaint, I am requesting CFPBs intervention to ensure compliance by both the credit bureaus and the data furnishers. I also request that the CFPB require the involved entities to supply proof that their reinvestigation procedures meet the legal standard of reasonableness and that they retain documentation for each verification claim.\n\nConclusion In summary, the disputed credit entries are unsupported by verified documentation and exhibit multiple compliance deficiencies under the FCRA and FDCPA. The bureaus reliance on automated verification and their failure to disclose evidence of validation constitute a breach of their statutory duties. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with the bureaus through written correspondence and have provided supporting documentation highlighting discrepancies. Nonetheless, these accounts remain on my credit reports without proper validation, causing ongoing financial and reputational harm. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this complaint, compel the credit bureaus and furnishers to produce full validation documentation, and enforce appropriate corrective action to ensure compliance with all applicable sections of the FCRA and FDCPA. My ultimate goal is fair and accurate reporting based on verified facts, not assumptions or automated data transfers. I am seeking accountability, transparency, and full adherence to the laws designed to protect consumers like me.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:34:39.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17209756","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:34:14.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A closed <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. \n\nA closed <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. \n\nA <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account closed in <em>XXXX</em> that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-<em>year</em> reporting period allowed by law."]},"sort":[8.485841,"17209756"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17209770","_score":8.471482,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In reviewing my recent credit reports from the national consumer reporting agencies, I discovered multiple accounts reported inaccurately, inconsistently, and without proper validation or substantiation. I am filing this complaint because the credit bureaus and furnishers involved appear to have failed to comply with the accuracy, reinvestigation, and documentation requirements set forth under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite attempts to request validation and clarification, I have not received original documentation proving the accuracy or legitimacy of the disputed accounts. This situation continues to cause significant harm to my creditworthiness, access to financial services, and overall consumer reputation. \n\nBackground Summary The disputed accounts include a combination of revolving credit, installment loans, and collection accounts that appear across one or more of the major bureaus. The items in question contain errors regarding reporting status, delinquency history, balance, and ownership, and in some cases, they appear only on one bureauraising concerns about inconsistent data transmission or unverified furnishing practices. Additionally, several accounts show contradictory statuses such as paid yet also marked as derogatory or collection/charge-off, which is contradictory under FCRA 602As requirement of maximum possible accuracy.\n\nThe following accounts are specifically in dispute due to questionable validation or inconsistent reporting : A collection/charge-off entry reported under the furnisher name XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$360.00}. \n\nA derogatory tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX, closed XX/XX/XXXX, showing a balance of {$8300.00} on TransUnion only. \n\nA collection item reported by XXXX XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$2200.00}, appearing only on TransUnion. \n\nA closed XXXX XXXX revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. \n\nA closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. \n\nA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account closed in XXXX that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-year reporting period allowed by law. \n\nChronological Summary of What Happened Over the past several months, I noticed derogatory reporting patterns affecting my credit file. I began by pulling updated credit reports from Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to compare entries. Upon review, I found multiple inconsistencies between the three bureaus regarding the same accountsdifferences in status, balance, and date of last activity. Some accounts appear only on one bureau, suggesting that data was never validated or uniformly transmitted. This disparity demonstrates a breakdown in accuracy procedures required by FCRA 607 ( B ), which obligates consumer reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of data in each file. \n\nI then filed formal written disputes with the credit bureaus, identifying each questionable account and requesting documentation to validate the information. Specifically, I asked for : The method of verification used to confirm accuracy. \n\nThe original contracts or legal instruments authorizing the reporting. \n\nThe data sources, system timestamps, and investigation notes supporting verification. \n\nConfirmation of whether each verification was conducted through e-Oscar, manual review, or third-party submission. \n\nCopies of communications between the bureau and the furnisher regarding my disputes. \n\nDespite those specific requests, I received only generic confirmation letters stating that the items were verified or remain. No detailed evidence, signed agreements, or verifiable audit trails were provided. This violates the intent of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which requires the bureau to disclose the method of verification when requested by a consumer after a reinvestigation. Without such transparency, there is no assurance that any true investigation occurred.\n\nImpact of the Failures to Investigate and Verify The continuing publication of unverified or inconsistent data has negatively impacted my credit profile and creditworthiness. These inaccuracies affect my ability to qualify for favorable loan terms, access housing or auto financing, and maintain fair insurance rates. The damage is both reputational and financial. Moreover, by failing to provide documentation showing chain of custody, assignment, and ownership for debt-purchased accounts, the furnishers appear to be reporting without legal authority or validation, violating FDCPA 809 ( b ) and 807 ( 8 ), which prohibit communication of unverified or false credit information.\n\nDetailed Account Analysis 1. XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item appears only on TransUnion and not on Experian or Equifax. The account is listed as a collection with a past-due balance of {$360.00} and a status of derogatory. There is no clear indication of the original creditor, and the absence of parallel reporting across bureaus indicates lack of validation. This may constitute reporting without verified documentation, violating FCRA 607 ( B ). Furthermore, the failure to provide evidence of a consumer contract or proof of assignment suggests possible data furnishing without permissible purpose. \n\n2. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item is labeled Derogatory with a balance of {$8300.00}. It appears only on TransUnion, not on Experian or Equifax. The reporting of an account on a single bureau more than six years after closure raises serious compliance concerns. The Fair Credit Reporting Act limits the reporting of negative information to seven years from the original delinquency date ( FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) ). Given the closure date, this entry may soon exceed the legal reporting period. The bureau has not supplied any proof that it verified this account through manual review or obtained any original contract from the creditor. \n\n3. XXXX XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Past Due {$2200.00} ) XXXX XXXX is a well-known debt buyer rather than an original creditor. Debt buyers are required under FDCPA 809 ( b ) to validate ownership and the full chain of assignment before collecting or furnishing data. The bureau has not produced any purchase agreement, assignment documentation, or chain-of-custody evidence showing that XXXX XXXX legally owns or controls the debt. Continued reporting of such unverifiable data constitutes deceptive practice under 807 ( 8 ) ( communicating credit information which is known or should be known to be false ). \n\n4. XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid, Late History Reported ) This account shows as paid yet reflects multiple late payments ( 30-day 2, 60-day 1 ). Such inconsistencies misrepresent the consumers payment behavior. No documentation proving that these late entries are accurate has been provided. If the bureau relies solely on automated furnisher responses through e-Oscar, that does not qualify as a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ). The continued presence of those delinquencies, despite the account being fully satisfied, creates a misleading and punitive record. \n\n5. XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid ) This account shows a XXXX balance but retains delinquency notations inconsistent with final payment records. It should either reflect paid as agreed or be removed altogether if no documentation can substantiate the late payments. This inconsistency may misrepresent repayment behavior and violates the principle of maximum accuracy under 607 ( B ). \n\n6. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) The reporting of a XXXX0-day late mark from XXXX appears to exceed the allowable reporting duration if based on a delinquency prior to that date. The bureaus have not produced the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), which is critical for compliance with FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ). If the DOFD precedes XXXX, this account should have already aged off the file. \n\nDiscrepancies Between Bureaus The most alarming issue is the inconsistency of these accounts between bureaus. Some appear only on TransUnion, others on Experian or Equifax. The presence of certain accounts on one report but not another suggests unvalidated data exchange, incomplete communication, or improper furnishing under FCRA 623 ( a ). Bureaus are obligated to ensure that data supplied by furnishers is uniform, accurate, and reflective of verified records. These inconsistencies create a materially misleading representation of my credit history. \n\nFailure to Provide a Reasonable Reinvestigation The credit bureaus responses to prior disputes consisted of brief statements indicating that the accounts were verified or updated. None included documentation of the verification process, identity of the furnisher representative, or audit logs demonstrating that human review took place. This approach relies heavily on automated e-Oscar codes, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously flagged as inadequate for full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ). A proper reinvestigation requires actual evidence, not an electronic confirmation code.\n\nAudit Trail and Data Source Transparency I have repeatedly requested an audit trail showing how the disputed data was obtained, transmitted, and verified. This includes user IDs, timestamps, and system logs indicating when furnishers reported updates. None of this information has been supplied. The absence of a documented trail impairs accountability and violates FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), which grants consumers the right to all information in their files and the sources of that information. \n\nPattern of Procedural Negligence The lack of validation, incomplete reinvestigation, and inconsistent data maintenance demonstrate a systemic problem in the bureaus compliance procedures. The bureaus appear to rely on furnishers data without adequate oversight or verification of original documentation. Such practices undermine the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in consumer reporting. Each of these failures compounds harm to the consumer and perpetuates false narratives about creditworthiness.\n\nViolations and Legal Provisions Implicated FCRA 602 ( A ) Failure to maintain fair and accurate reporting.\n\nFCRA 607 ( B ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to disclose method of verification.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure of furnishers to report disputed information as disputed.\n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) Reporting negative information beyond the seven-year limit.\n\nFDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Communicating credit information known or should be known to be false.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to validate debt prior to continued reporting.\n\nConsumer Harm and Emotional Distress Due to these inaccuracies, I have faced credit denials, higher interest rates, and emotional distress caused by repeated rejections and fear of being viewed as a high-risk borrower. The persistence of these derogatory entries undermines the integrity of my financial profile and violates the trust consumers are entitled to under federal consumer protection laws. Repeated attempts to resolve the issue directly with the bureaus have proven futile due to generic automated responses and lack of transparency. \n\nRequested Resolution I am seeking the following corrective actions : A full, manual reinvestigation of each disputed account, conducted in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ), including contact with furnishers to obtain original documentation.\n\nWritten disclosure of the method of verification used for each account, including data sources, audit logs, and communications with furnishers.\n\nImmediate removal or suppression of any account that can not be validated with original signed contracts or proof of ownership.\n\nWritten confirmation that the bureaus have notified all furnishers of the disputes and that unverifiable data will not be reinserted unless certified under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nUpdated copies of my credit reports reflecting all deletions or corrections within five business days of resolution.\n\nAssurance that any account determined unverifiable will be deleted permanently and not re\n-reported without certified validation.\n\nBroader Implications and Need for Oversight This case reflects a broader issue within the credit reporting system, where consumers disputes are frequently handled through automated codes without genuine examination of original evidence. Such procedural shortcuts create systemic inaccuracy, leaving consumers with long-lasting harm. The FCRA and FDCPA were enacted precisely to prevent such negligence, yet their enforcement depends on oversight from agencies such as the CFPB.\n\nBy submitting this complaint, I am requesting CFPBs intervention to ensure compliance by both the credit bureaus and the data furnishers. I also request that the CFPB require the involved entities to supply proof that their reinvestigation procedures meet the legal standard of reasonableness and that they retain documentation for each verification claim.\n\nConclusion In summary, the disputed credit entries are unsupported by verified documentation and exhibit multiple compliance deficiencies under the FCRA and FDCPA. The bureaus reliance on automated verification and their failure to disclose evidence of validation constitute a breach of their statutory duties. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with the bureaus through written correspondence and have provided supporting documentation highlighting discrepancies. Nonetheless, these accounts remain on my credit reports without proper validation, causing ongoing financial and reputational harm. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this complaint, compel the credit bureaus and furnishers to produce full validation documentation, and enforce appropriate corrective action to ensure compliance with all applicable sections of the FCRA and FDCPA. My ultimate goal is fair and accurate reporting based on verified facts, not assumptions or automated data transfers. I am seeking accountability, transparency, and full adherence to the laws designed to protect consumers like me.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:34:41.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17209770","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:30:00.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A closed <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. \n\nA closed <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. \n\nA <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account closed in <em>XXXX</em> that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-<em>year</em> reporting period allowed by law."]},"sort":[8.471482,"17209770"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17209757","_score":8.471482,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In reviewing my recent credit reports from the national consumer reporting agencies, I discovered multiple accounts reported inaccurately, inconsistently, and without proper validation or substantiation. I am filing this complaint because the credit bureaus and furnishers involved appear to have failed to comply with the accuracy, reinvestigation, and documentation requirements set forth under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite attempts to request validation and clarification, I have not received original documentation proving the accuracy or legitimacy of the disputed accounts. This situation continues to cause significant harm to my creditworthiness, access to financial services, and overall consumer reputation. \n\nBackground Summary The disputed accounts include a combination of revolving credit, installment loans, and collection accounts that appear across one or more of the major bureaus. The items in question contain errors regarding reporting status, delinquency history, balance, and ownership, and in some cases, they appear only on one bureauraising concerns about inconsistent data transmission or unverified furnishing practices. Additionally, several accounts show contradictory statuses such as paid yet also marked as derogatory or collection/charge-off, which is contradictory under FCRA 602As requirement of maximum possible accuracy.\n\nThe following accounts are specifically in dispute due to questionable validation or inconsistent reporting : A collection/charge-off entry reported under the furnisher name XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$360.00}. \n\nA derogatory tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX, closed XX/XX/XXXX, showing a balance of {$8300.00} on TransUnion only. \n\nA collection item reported by XXXX XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$2200.00}, appearing only on TransUnion. \n\nA closed XXXX XXXX revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. \n\nA closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. \n\nA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account closed in XXXX that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-year reporting period allowed by law. \n\nChronological Summary of What Happened Over the past several months, I noticed derogatory reporting patterns affecting my credit file. I began by pulling updated credit reports from Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to compare entries. Upon review, I found multiple inconsistencies between the three bureaus regarding the same accountsdifferences in status, balance, and date of last activity. Some accounts appear only on one bureau, suggesting that data was never validated or uniformly transmitted. This disparity demonstrates a breakdown in accuracy procedures required by FCRA 607 ( B ), which obligates consumer reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of data in each file. \n\nI then filed formal written disputes with the credit bureaus, identifying each questionable account and requesting documentation to validate the information. Specifically, I asked for : The method of verification used to confirm accuracy. \n\nThe original contracts or legal instruments authorizing the reporting. \n\nThe data sources, system timestamps, and investigation notes supporting verification. \n\nConfirmation of whether each verification was conducted through e-Oscar, manual review, or third-party submission. \n\nCopies of communications between the bureau and the furnisher regarding my disputes. \n\nDespite those specific requests, I received only generic confirmation letters stating that the items were verified or remain. No detailed evidence, signed agreements, or verifiable audit trails were provided. This violates the intent of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which requires the bureau to disclose the method of verification when requested by a consumer after a reinvestigation. Without such transparency, there is no assurance that any true investigation occurred.\n\nImpact of the Failures to Investigate and Verify The continuing publication of unverified or inconsistent data has negatively impacted my credit profile and creditworthiness. These inaccuracies affect my ability to qualify for favorable loan terms, access housing or auto financing, and maintain fair insurance rates. The damage is both reputational and financial. Moreover, by failing to provide documentation showing chain of custody, assignment, and ownership for debt-purchased accounts, the furnishers appear to be reporting without legal authority or validation, violating FDCPA 809 ( b ) and 807 ( 8 ), which prohibit communication of unverified or false credit information.\n\nDetailed Account Analysis 1. XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item appears only on TransUnion and not on Experian or Equifax. The account is listed as a collection with a past-due balance of {$360.00} and a status of derogatory. There is no clear indication of the original creditor, and the absence of parallel reporting across bureaus indicates lack of validation. This may constitute reporting without verified documentation, violating FCRA 607 ( B ). Furthermore, the failure to provide evidence of a consumer contract or proof of assignment suggests possible data furnishing without permissible purpose. \n\n2. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item is labeled Derogatory with a balance of {$8300.00}. It appears only on TransUnion, not on Experian or Equifax. The reporting of an account on a single bureau more than six years after closure raises serious compliance concerns. The Fair Credit Reporting Act limits the reporting of negative information to seven years from the original delinquency date ( FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) ). Given the closure date, this entry may soon exceed the legal reporting period. The bureau has not supplied any proof that it verified this account through manual review or obtained any original contract from the creditor. \n\n3. XXXX XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Past Due {$2200.00} ) XXXX XXXX is a well-known debt buyer rather than an original creditor. Debt buyers are required under FDCPA 809 ( b ) to validate ownership and the full chain of assignment before collecting or furnishing data. The bureau has not produced any purchase agreement, assignment documentation, or chain-of-custody evidence showing that XXXX XXXX legally owns or controls the debt. Continued reporting of such unverifiable data constitutes deceptive practice under 807 ( 8 ) ( communicating credit information which is known or should be known to be false ). \n\n4. XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid, Late History Reported ) This account shows as paid yet reflects multiple late payments ( 30-day 2, 60-day 1 ). Such inconsistencies misrepresent the consumers payment behavior. No documentation proving that these late entries are accurate has been provided. If the bureau relies solely on automated furnisher responses through e-Oscar, that does not qualify as a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ). The continued presence of those delinquencies, despite the account being fully satisfied, creates a misleading and punitive record. \n\n5. XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid ) This account shows a XXXX balance but retains delinquency notations inconsistent with final payment records. It should either reflect paid as agreed or be removed altogether if no documentation can substantiate the late payments. This inconsistency may misrepresent repayment behavior and violates the principle of maximum accuracy under 607 ( B ). \n\n6. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) The reporting of a XXXX0-day late mark from XXXX appears to exceed the allowable reporting duration if based on a delinquency prior to that date. The bureaus have not produced the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), which is critical for compliance with FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ). If the DOFD precedes XXXX, this account should have already aged off the file. \n\nDiscrepancies Between Bureaus The most alarming issue is the inconsistency of these accounts between bureaus. Some appear only on TransUnion, others on Experian or Equifax. The presence of certain accounts on one report but not another suggests unvalidated data exchange, incomplete communication, or improper furnishing under FCRA 623 ( a ). Bureaus are obligated to ensure that data supplied by furnishers is uniform, accurate, and reflective of verified records. These inconsistencies create a materially misleading representation of my credit history. \n\nFailure to Provide a Reasonable Reinvestigation The credit bureaus responses to prior disputes consisted of brief statements indicating that the accounts were verified or updated. None included documentation of the verification process, identity of the furnisher representative, or audit logs demonstrating that human review took place. This approach relies heavily on automated e-Oscar codes, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously flagged as inadequate for full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ). A proper reinvestigation requires actual evidence, not an electronic confirmation code.\n\nAudit Trail and Data Source Transparency I have repeatedly requested an audit trail showing how the disputed data was obtained, transmitted, and verified. This includes user IDs, timestamps, and system logs indicating when furnishers reported updates. None of this information has been supplied. The absence of a documented trail impairs accountability and violates FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), which grants consumers the right to all information in their files and the sources of that information. \n\nPattern of Procedural Negligence The lack of validation, incomplete reinvestigation, and inconsistent data maintenance demonstrate a systemic problem in the bureaus compliance procedures. The bureaus appear to rely on furnishers data without adequate oversight or verification of original documentation. Such practices undermine the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in consumer reporting. Each of these failures compounds harm to the consumer and perpetuates false narratives about creditworthiness.\n\nViolations and Legal Provisions Implicated FCRA 602 ( A ) Failure to maintain fair and accurate reporting.\n\nFCRA 607 ( B ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to disclose method of verification.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure of furnishers to report disputed information as disputed.\n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) Reporting negative information beyond the seven-year limit.\n\nFDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Communicating credit information known or should be known to be false.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to validate debt prior to continued reporting.\n\nConsumer Harm and Emotional Distress Due to these inaccuracies, I have faced credit denials, higher interest rates, and emotional distress caused by repeated rejections and fear of being viewed as a high-risk borrower. The persistence of these derogatory entries undermines the integrity of my financial profile and violates the trust consumers are entitled to under federal consumer protection laws. Repeated attempts to resolve the issue directly with the bureaus have proven futile due to generic automated responses and lack of transparency. \n\nRequested Resolution I am seeking the following corrective actions : A full, manual reinvestigation of each disputed account, conducted in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ), including contact with furnishers to obtain original documentation.\n\nWritten disclosure of the method of verification used for each account, including data sources, audit logs, and communications with furnishers.\n\nImmediate removal or suppression of any account that can not be validated with original signed contracts or proof of ownership.\n\nWritten confirmation that the bureaus have notified all furnishers of the disputes and that unverifiable data will not be reinserted unless certified under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nUpdated copies of my credit reports reflecting all deletions or corrections within five business days of resolution.\n\nAssurance that any account determined unverifiable will be deleted permanently and not re\n-reported without certified validation.\n\nBroader Implications and Need for Oversight This case reflects a broader issue within the credit reporting system, where consumers disputes are frequently handled through automated codes without genuine examination of original evidence. Such procedural shortcuts create systemic inaccuracy, leaving consumers with long-lasting harm. The FCRA and FDCPA were enacted precisely to prevent such negligence, yet their enforcement depends on oversight from agencies such as the CFPB.\n\nBy submitting this complaint, I am requesting CFPBs intervention to ensure compliance by both the credit bureaus and the data furnishers. I also request that the CFPB require the involved entities to supply proof that their reinvestigation procedures meet the legal standard of reasonableness and that they retain documentation for each verification claim.\n\nConclusion In summary, the disputed credit entries are unsupported by verified documentation and exhibit multiple compliance deficiencies under the FCRA and FDCPA. The bureaus reliance on automated verification and their failure to disclose evidence of validation constitute a breach of their statutory duties. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with the bureaus through written correspondence and have provided supporting documentation highlighting discrepancies. Nonetheless, these accounts remain on my credit reports without proper validation, causing ongoing financial and reputational harm. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this complaint, compel the credit bureaus and furnishers to produce full validation documentation, and enforce appropriate corrective action to ensure compliance with all applicable sections of the FCRA and FDCPA. My ultimate goal is fair and accurate reporting based on verified facts, not assumptions or automated data transfers. I am seeking accountability, transparency, and full adherence to the laws designed to protect consumers like me.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T01:34:41.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"63121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17209757","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-13T01:34:14.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A closed <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. \n\nA closed <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. \n\nA <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account closed in <em>XXXX</em> that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-<em>year</em> reporting period allowed by law."]},"sort":[8.471482,"17209757"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"23216171","_score":8.4390135,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint at the direction of Citibank 's own correspondence, which three times referenced the CFPB as the oversight body for this creditor. I am a XXXX XXXX XXXX  AAdvantage member, a XXXX XXXX Miler for life, and hold Executive Platinum status AA 's highest publicly available tier. \n\nBACKGROUND This account originated as a XXXX AAdvantage Aviator XXXX XXXX XXXX Mastercard ( ending XXXX ) in XX/XX/XXXX. I maintained a perfect record for nearly 9 years XXXX late payments, XXXX fees, XXXX interest across XXXX consecutive months with a credit limit that grew to {$36000.00}. In early XXXX, XXXX transferred the AAdvantage portfolio to Citi through a corporate acquisition I had no part in initiating. \n\nTEN COMMUNICATIONS XXXX DISCLOSURE OF CLOSURE RISK Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Citi sent ten formal communications about this account. Not one disclosed any closure risk : a XX/XX/XXXX transfer notice welcoming me as a Citi customer and stating the account would automatically transfer ; a XX/XX/XXXX eighteen-page welcome package ; a XX/XX/XXXX email stating we are excited to welcome you as a customer, confirming ineligible accounts would receive XXXX communications none were received ; XX/XX/XXXX confirmations of Citi Online registration , Citi Alerts setup, and a {$14000.00} payment accepted by Citi from an external bank account consistent with my practice of paying before or at the monthly due date ; a XX/XX/XXXX welcome email encouraging card spending ; a XX/XX/XXXX travel benefits email ; a XX/XX/XXXX operational email instructing me to destroy my XXXX card ; and a XX/XX/XXXX marketing email sent one day before closure urging me to start earning AAdvantage miles. On XX/XX/XXXX, nine days before closure, I purchased two XXXX XXXX tickets totaling {$1800.00} on this card. Citi issued a statement XX/XX/XXXX showing a {$36000.00} credit limit, XXXX fees, and XXXX miles earned nine days before closure with no indication of any problem. \n\nTHE CARD CARRIER LETTER PRIMARY EXHIBIT On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a card carrier letter : INTRODUCING YOUR NEW CITI/AADVANTAGE XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX  MASTERCARD. It confirmed Account Credit Limit : {$36000.00}, displayed Welcome to Citi and ACTIVATE AND EXPLORE, with two physical cards affixed. I never activated either card. I never detached either card from the letter. They remain attached to this day. Three days later XX/XX/XXXX Citi closed the account. I never made a single Citi transaction. \n\nHOW I DISCOVERED THE CLOSURE On XX/XX/XXXX, I was traveling internationally. A {$570.00} charge to the same XXXX merchant I had used XX/XX/XXXX was rejected. I called Citi at XXXX XXXX ET confirmed by my phone log showing a 29-minute call to XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX. The closure email arrived at XXXX XXXX  five minutes into the call. After consulting internally, a Citi representative told me the issue came from the banking side, not the credit card side independently confirming the core argument of this complaint. I request the CFPB require Citi to produce the recording of this call. \n\nCITI 'S STATED REASON AND ITS INADEQUACY Citi cited a banking relationship termination in XX/XX/XXXX. The XXXX letters Citi provided are exclusively deposit account closure notices ATM cards, debit cards, checks, overdrafts with no reference to credit cards or future preclusion from credit products. This account did not exist as a Citi product in XXXX. When Citi responded to my dispute, they attached only one of two deposit account letters no credit card closure letter. If the XXXX termination extended to credit products, Citi would have produced that documentation. They did not. I request the CFPB require Citi to produce any such documentation. I retained XXXX deposit account closure letters along with Citi correspondence dating to XXXX, demonstrating a consistent practice of preserving documents. The absence of any credit card closure letter from my records strongly suggests none was ever issued. \n\nIn XXXX, the same year Citi terminated its relationship with me, XXXX independently evaluated my creditworthiness and issued their XXXX  XXXX XXXX Mastercard. Over 9 years XXXX maintained that relationship, growing the limit to {$36000.00} with XXXX adverse actions directly contradicting any suggestion the XXXX Citi decision reflects my creditworthiness. Additionally, the XX/XX/XXXX welcome package contained an arbitration provision with a rejection deadline of XX/XX/XXXX nine days before closure. A consumer can not make an informed legal decision about arbitration rights when the counterparty is concealing the account 's imminent closure. \n\nCiti 's own billing statements issued XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX display Member Since XXXX, confirming Citi received the complete 9-year account history when they acquired the portfolio. That history showed 83 consecutive months of perfect payments, XXXX fees, XXXX interest, and a credit limit grown to {$36000.00}. A genuine human review would have found no basis for closure. The facts are consistent with an automated system acting on a XXXX unreviewed determination without evaluating the actual 9-year record Citi 's own systems confirm they possessed.\n\nTHREE CREDIT CARDS. 46 COMBINED YEARS. XXXX CREDIT ISSUES. \n\nThis closure follows a pattern established in XXXX when Citi simultaneously closed two AAdvantage credit cards one held since XXXX ( 20 years ) and one since XXXX ( 17 years ) both with exemplary histories and neither receiving a credit-specific closure notice or justification. Across three Citi credit cards spanning 46 combined years, not a single adverse credit event was ever recorded. The credit record has never been the issue not in XXXX, not in XXXX, not in XXXX, not in XXXX. Citi is applying a banking-side determination to a credit-side relationship without credit-specific review or nexus between the two. There is no banking relationship to cure it ended in XXXX. Had Citi contacted me before closing this account, I would have voluntarily closed it rather than face negative credit reporting an option denied me without notice. \n\nPREDETERMINED RESPONSE On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a formal dispute. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX, Citi promised a deliberate thorough review within 15 days. At XXXX XXXX the same day less than 5 hours later Citi 's Office of the President issued a final response that did not address a single argument raised.\n\nTHE CREDIT REPORTING HARM Had Citi disclosed the closure risk at any point across ten communications, I would have closed the account voluntarily resulting in clean Closed by Consumer coding. Instead : XXXX  shows XXXX Closed By XXXX ; XXXX  shows Account closed at credit XXXX 's request on record until XX/XX/XXXX. This harm is direct, measurable, factually inaccurate closed for banking-side reasons without credit review and a consequence of Citi 's concealment, not my conduct. Citi had months to manage this internally without imposing negative coding on a spotless 9-year account. Notably, the physical closure notice Citi mailed XX/XX/XXXX states : As requested, we've closed your account language used for voluntary consumer-initiated closures. I did not request this closure. Citi 's own documents are internally inconsistent about who initiated it further confirming the negative credit reporting notation is factually inaccurate. \n\nSYSTEMIC DISORGANIZATION Citi 's own portal, accessed XX/XX/XXXX, simultaneously displays This account is closed AND A new card is in the works your card will be arriving soon, be sure to activate it. Citi shipped a second set of cards on XX/XX/XXXX two weeks after closing the account which have not been received. Citi 's portal confirms AutoPay settings from XXXX did not carry over never disclosed in any of the ten pre-closure communications, exposing consumers relying on AutoPay continuity to potential late fees on a closed account. \n\nWHAT I AM REQUESTING 1. Full explanation of the XXXX termination and production of any documentation extending it to credit products.\n\n2. Reconsideration of the closure.\n\n3. Correction of negative credit reporting on all three bureaus the notation is factually inaccurate as this was not a credit-side closure and Citi 's own physical notice used voluntary closure language.\n\n4. CFPB consideration of whether Citi 's conduct ten communications with XXXX closure risk disclosure, card issuance, payment acceptance, spending solicitation the day before closure, and application of a 9-year-old banking determination to a credit relationship without credit review constitutes an unfair, deceptive, or abusive practice. The harm is substantial negative credit coding until XX/XX/XXXX. It was unavoidable Citi 's concealment denied the opportunity to close voluntarily. There was no countervailing benefit Citi had months to conduct this review without imposing this harm. \n5. Investigation of whether other XXXXto-Citi transferees were similarly affected.\n\n6. Production of the XX/XX/XXXX call recording. \n7. Recognition that Citi holds an exclusive co-brand agreement covering all AAdvantage consumer credit cards in the United States. There is no alternative card that earns AAdvantage miles. This closure eliminated my ability to use any credit card to support a 29-year loyalty relationship through no fault of my own and before a single Citi transaction was made.\n\nI have exhausted all direct dispute channels with Citi. Full detail and 28 supporting documents are attached as a Supplemental Narrative. Citi 's own correspondence twice directed me to the CFPB I am using exactly the channel they identified. Citi internal reference number : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, notified and confirmed the matter is under review by their AAdvantage department, assigned reference number : AA Ref # XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-15T15:12:01.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33133","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"23216171","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-06-15T14:34:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> at the direction of Citibank 's own correspondence, which three times referenced the CFPB as the oversight body for this creditor. I am a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  AAdvantage member, a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Miler for life, and hold Executive Platinum status AA 's highest publicly available tier. \n\nBACKGROUND This account originated as a <em>XXXX</em> AAdvantage Aviator <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Mastercard ( ending <em>XXXX</em> ) in XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[8.4390135,"23216171"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17299757","_score":8.354766,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit file in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this narrative to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, disputes filed, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review. This account of what happened reflects the information available to me through my credit reports, my payment history, and my attempts to resolve or correct the reporting issues with the companies involved. \n\nThe primary accounts involved are two XXXX  XXXX charge-off files, an XXXX  account that appears under Experian only, a XXXX XXXX  XXXX account, and multiple Department of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments. My intention is to explain how each situation unfolded, what steps I took to resolve or verify the information, and why I believe the current reporting may not accurately reflect the actual history of the accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charge-Off Accounts ( Two Separate Accounts ) There are two XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts being reported as charge-offs or collections. Both list multiple late payments leading up to charge-off status, and both show closing dates around XX/XX/year>. The first account reports roughly XXXX XXXX dollars past due, while the second reports a past-due balance of over XXXX XXXX dollars. Both show a pattern of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments.\n\nThe problem is that I do not have clear records regarding the timeframe when these accounts allegedly became delinquent. I attempted several times to determine whether these accounts were valid, whether they belonged to me, or whether the balances were correctly calculated. When I first saw the late payments appearing on my credit report, I contacted XXXX XXXX to ask for billing statements, original account documentation, and clarification about when the late payments supposedly started. In those interactions, I was not provided statements or documents that clearly identified the timeline of delinquency. \n\nWhen I attempted to dispute these entries through the credit bureaus, the results of the disputes came back as verified, but no details were provided about the method of verification used. I could not obtain a clear explanation as to whether the account information was reviewed manually by XXXX XXXX, verified electronically through automated systems, or relayed through a third-party agency. I also did not receive copies of any documents XXXX XXXX may have used to justify the reporting. As a result, I have been left without the ability to understand how the company concluded the accounts were delinquent, or how the balances reached the levels reported in the charge-off entries. \n\nI also attempted to contact XXXX XXXX during the period these accounts were allegedly open in order to address any outstanding amounts, but I was not able to access or view current statements. The company did not provide detailed breakdowns of charges, payments, or fees. Because of this, I was not able to resolve the accounts proactively or verify that the amounts being reported were accurate. \n\nGiven that both accounts appear to have similar closing dates, similar patterns of late payment coding, and similar verification outcomes during disputes, I am concerned that automated reporting systems may have been used without full investigation. The unresolved questions include whether the accounts were validated with original creditor documentation, whether the delinquency dates were calculated accurately, whether the amounts are correct, and whether procedural errors occurred during updates and reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX account in question appears only on the Experian credit report. This account shows a delinquency history leading to derogatory status, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments. The reported charge-off occurred in XXXX  with more than XXXX XXXX dollars past due. \n\nThe difficulty in addressing this XXXX account is that I do not recall receiving consistent statements, billing notices, or payment reminders during the time period in which the late payments allegedly occurred. When the account was first reported as derogatory, I attempted to obtain documentation from XXXX, including transaction history, billing dates, original loan or installment agreement information, and payment records. I did not receive detailed documentation explaining how the past-due amount was calculated or how the delinquency timeline developed. \n\nI also filed a dispute regarding this account with Experian. The result was that the account was verified, but, again, no explanation was provided about the verification method used, what documents were reviewed, or what internal procedures were followed to determine that the account was being reported accurately. I was not provided with statements, screenshots, or any form of documentation from XXXX that could help me understand the origin of the charges or validate the accuracy of the reporting. \n\nAdditionally, because XXXX operates primarily through digital invoices and app-based payment systems, there may have been email delivery issues, login issues, or missed notifications. Without being given clear documentation, I can not confirm whether I received all required notices, whether there were errors in the billing cycle, or whether the amount due is correct. These uncertainties make it difficult for me to verify the account accurately or understand how the derogatory status developed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX collection account lists a past-due amount of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dollars and is marked as derogatory. I attempted to determine the origin of this debt and contact XXXX XXXX, but I was unable to obtain full validation or documentation from the collection agency. I did not receive a detailed statement, original creditor information, or written verification of the debt within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nWhen I disputed the account with the credit bureaus, the account again returned as verified, but no documentation or explanation was provided to me. I could not determine whether the debt was assigned or purchased, whether the original creditor still maintains ownership, or whether XXXX XXXX is legally authorized to collect on the debt. Without knowing the chain of custody or the source of the information, I am unable to confirm whether the account is valid. \n\nAdditionally, the small balance of the debt raises questions, as I do not recall being notified by any creditor of an outstanding amount in that range. I also did not receive notices regarding the account being sent to collections, nor did I receive itemized statements or breakdowns of the charges. Because of this, I can not confirm whether the debt belongs to me, whether the amount is correct, or whether the reporting is accurate. \n\nStudent Loan Late Payment Reporting Multiple federal student loan accounts through the Department of Education are reporting extensive 90-day late payment histories, even though those loans have since been closed or transferred. The late payments appear to be from periods where loan servicer transitions or administrative changes may have occurred.\n\nDuring the period in which the late payments are being reported, there were changes in student loan servicing nationwide, including account transfers, forbearance periods, pandemic-related administrative adjustments, and shifting payment requirements. In my case, there were times when I completed applications for forbearance or deferment, and I believed the loans were under an administrative pause. In some cases, I did not receive timely notices from the servicer notifying me that a payment was due. \n\nWhen I reviewed my credit report and saw multiple 90 days late designations for several consecutive months on multiple loan accounts, I began attempting to resolve the issue. I contacted the loan servicer to request payment histories, notice records, and documentation showing whether bills were sent or whether payments were due during the months in question. I was not provided complete or clear documentation indicating whether the loans were in an active repayment phase, in a transferred status, or under some other administrative category during the months coded as late. \n\nI disputed the student loan late payments with the credit bureaus. The bureaus indicated that the accounts were verified, but no explanation was provided about what records were reviewed. Given the known issues during servicer transitions, I am unsure whether the servicers reporting was accurate or whether there may have been a system error, miscommunication, or reporting delay. \n\nActions I Have Taken Across all accounts, I have consistently attempted to obtain validation, statements, documentation, or clear communication from the companies involved. My actions include : Filing multiple disputes with all three credit bureaus.\n\nRequesting validation or verification of debts directly from creditors or collectors.\n\nAttempting to obtain original statements, billing notices, or transactional proof.\n\nRequesting explanation of reporting timelines and delinquency calculations.\n\nReviewing credit reports from each bureau to compare inconsistencies.\n\nAttempting to resolve or verify unresolved account histories.\n\nContacting servicers regarding student loan reporting issues.\n\nDespite these efforts, I have not received detailed information, documentation, billing statements, or clarification that would allow me to confirm that the reported entries are accurate.\n\nWhy I Believe the Reporting Is Inaccurate or Incomplete There are several reasons why I believe the information may not be accurate : Inability to obtain documentation from furnishers despite repeated attempts.\n\nLack of itemized statements clearly showing how balances were calculated.\n\nDisputes marked verified without any explanation of how verification occurred.\n\nPossible automated verification processes without manual review. \n\nLack of original creditor information in the XXXX XXXX account. \n\nPotential system errors or miscommunication during student loan transitions. \n\nInconsistent reporting between bureaus, such as the XXXX account appearing only on Experian. \n\nDifficulty determining whether accounts were assigned, sold, or transferred. \n\nBecause of these factors, I can not independently confirm the accuracy of the negative information. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting Through This Complaint Through this complaint, I am requesting that the CFPB help facilitate a more thorough review or reinvestigation of these accounts. I am asking that the companies involved provide : Clear documentation showing the basis for the reporting. \n\nCopies of billing statements, transaction history, and delinquency calculations. \n\nProof of assignment or authority to collect debts where applicable. \n\nExplanation of how verification was completed during my disputes. \n\nCorrection or removal of any information that can not be substantiated. \n\nMy goal is not to avoid legitimate debts, but to ensure that the information being reported is accurate, complete, and supported by real documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:13:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32810","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17299757","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-17T19:13:04.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit <em>file</em> in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this <em>narrative</em> to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, <em>disputes</em> <em>filed</em>, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review."]},"sort":[8.354766,"17299757"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17299756","_score":8.354766,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit file in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this narrative to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, disputes filed, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review. This account of what happened reflects the information available to me through my credit reports, my payment history, and my attempts to resolve or correct the reporting issues with the companies involved. \n\nThe primary accounts involved are two XXXX  XXXX charge-off files, an XXXX  account that appears under Experian only, a XXXX XXXX  XXXX account, and multiple Department of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments. My intention is to explain how each situation unfolded, what steps I took to resolve or verify the information, and why I believe the current reporting may not accurately reflect the actual history of the accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charge-Off Accounts ( Two Separate Accounts ) There are two XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts being reported as charge-offs or collections. Both list multiple late payments leading up to charge-off status, and both show closing dates around XX/XX/year>. The first account reports roughly XXXX XXXX dollars past due, while the second reports a past-due balance of over XXXX XXXX dollars. Both show a pattern of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments.\n\nThe problem is that I do not have clear records regarding the timeframe when these accounts allegedly became delinquent. I attempted several times to determine whether these accounts were valid, whether they belonged to me, or whether the balances were correctly calculated. When I first saw the late payments appearing on my credit report, I contacted XXXX XXXX to ask for billing statements, original account documentation, and clarification about when the late payments supposedly started. In those interactions, I was not provided statements or documents that clearly identified the timeline of delinquency. \n\nWhen I attempted to dispute these entries through the credit bureaus, the results of the disputes came back as verified, but no details were provided about the method of verification used. I could not obtain a clear explanation as to whether the account information was reviewed manually by XXXX XXXX, verified electronically through automated systems, or relayed through a third-party agency. I also did not receive copies of any documents XXXX XXXX may have used to justify the reporting. As a result, I have been left without the ability to understand how the company concluded the accounts were delinquent, or how the balances reached the levels reported in the charge-off entries. \n\nI also attempted to contact XXXX XXXX during the period these accounts were allegedly open in order to address any outstanding amounts, but I was not able to access or view current statements. The company did not provide detailed breakdowns of charges, payments, or fees. Because of this, I was not able to resolve the accounts proactively or verify that the amounts being reported were accurate. \n\nGiven that both accounts appear to have similar closing dates, similar patterns of late payment coding, and similar verification outcomes during disputes, I am concerned that automated reporting systems may have been used without full investigation. The unresolved questions include whether the accounts were validated with original creditor documentation, whether the delinquency dates were calculated accurately, whether the amounts are correct, and whether procedural errors occurred during updates and reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX account in question appears only on the Experian credit report. This account shows a delinquency history leading to derogatory status, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments. The reported charge-off occurred in XXXX  with more than XXXX XXXX dollars past due. \n\nThe difficulty in addressing this XXXX account is that I do not recall receiving consistent statements, billing notices, or payment reminders during the time period in which the late payments allegedly occurred. When the account was first reported as derogatory, I attempted to obtain documentation from XXXX, including transaction history, billing dates, original loan or installment agreement information, and payment records. I did not receive detailed documentation explaining how the past-due amount was calculated or how the delinquency timeline developed. \n\nI also filed a dispute regarding this account with Experian. The result was that the account was verified, but, again, no explanation was provided about the verification method used, what documents were reviewed, or what internal procedures were followed to determine that the account was being reported accurately. I was not provided with statements, screenshots, or any form of documentation from XXXX that could help me understand the origin of the charges or validate the accuracy of the reporting. \n\nAdditionally, because XXXX operates primarily through digital invoices and app-based payment systems, there may have been email delivery issues, login issues, or missed notifications. Without being given clear documentation, I can not confirm whether I received all required notices, whether there were errors in the billing cycle, or whether the amount due is correct. These uncertainties make it difficult for me to verify the account accurately or understand how the derogatory status developed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX collection account lists a past-due amount of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dollars and is marked as derogatory. I attempted to determine the origin of this debt and contact XXXX XXXX, but I was unable to obtain full validation or documentation from the collection agency. I did not receive a detailed statement, original creditor information, or written verification of the debt within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nWhen I disputed the account with the credit bureaus, the account again returned as verified, but no documentation or explanation was provided to me. I could not determine whether the debt was assigned or purchased, whether the original creditor still maintains ownership, or whether XXXX XXXX is legally authorized to collect on the debt. Without knowing the chain of custody or the source of the information, I am unable to confirm whether the account is valid. \n\nAdditionally, the small balance of the debt raises questions, as I do not recall being notified by any creditor of an outstanding amount in that range. I also did not receive notices regarding the account being sent to collections, nor did I receive itemized statements or breakdowns of the charges. Because of this, I can not confirm whether the debt belongs to me, whether the amount is correct, or whether the reporting is accurate. \n\nStudent Loan Late Payment Reporting Multiple federal student loan accounts through the Department of Education are reporting extensive 90-day late payment histories, even though those loans have since been closed or transferred. The late payments appear to be from periods where loan servicer transitions or administrative changes may have occurred.\n\nDuring the period in which the late payments are being reported, there were changes in student loan servicing nationwide, including account transfers, forbearance periods, pandemic-related administrative adjustments, and shifting payment requirements. In my case, there were times when I completed applications for forbearance or deferment, and I believed the loans were under an administrative pause. In some cases, I did not receive timely notices from the servicer notifying me that a payment was due. \n\nWhen I reviewed my credit report and saw multiple 90 days late designations for several consecutive months on multiple loan accounts, I began attempting to resolve the issue. I contacted the loan servicer to request payment histories, notice records, and documentation showing whether bills were sent or whether payments were due during the months in question. I was not provided complete or clear documentation indicating whether the loans were in an active repayment phase, in a transferred status, or under some other administrative category during the months coded as late. \n\nI disputed the student loan late payments with the credit bureaus. The bureaus indicated that the accounts were verified, but no explanation was provided about what records were reviewed. Given the known issues during servicer transitions, I am unsure whether the servicers reporting was accurate or whether there may have been a system error, miscommunication, or reporting delay. \n\nActions I Have Taken Across all accounts, I have consistently attempted to obtain validation, statements, documentation, or clear communication from the companies involved. My actions include : Filing multiple disputes with all three credit bureaus.\n\nRequesting validation or verification of debts directly from creditors or collectors.\n\nAttempting to obtain original statements, billing notices, or transactional proof.\n\nRequesting explanation of reporting timelines and delinquency calculations.\n\nReviewing credit reports from each bureau to compare inconsistencies.\n\nAttempting to resolve or verify unresolved account histories.\n\nContacting servicers regarding student loan reporting issues.\n\nDespite these efforts, I have not received detailed information, documentation, billing statements, or clarification that would allow me to confirm that the reported entries are accurate.\n\nWhy I Believe the Reporting Is Inaccurate or Incomplete There are several reasons why I believe the information may not be accurate : Inability to obtain documentation from furnishers despite repeated attempts.\n\nLack of itemized statements clearly showing how balances were calculated.\n\nDisputes marked verified without any explanation of how verification occurred.\n\nPossible automated verification processes without manual review. \n\nLack of original creditor information in the XXXX XXXX account. \n\nPotential system errors or miscommunication during student loan transitions. \n\nInconsistent reporting between bureaus, such as the XXXX account appearing only on Experian. \n\nDifficulty determining whether accounts were assigned, sold, or transferred. \n\nBecause of these factors, I can not independently confirm the accuracy of the negative information. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting Through This Complaint Through this complaint, I am requesting that the CFPB help facilitate a more thorough review or reinvestigation of these accounts. I am asking that the companies involved provide : Clear documentation showing the basis for the reporting. \n\nCopies of billing statements, transaction history, and delinquency calculations. \n\nProof of assignment or authority to collect debts where applicable. \n\nExplanation of how verification was completed during my disputes. \n\nCorrection or removal of any information that can not be substantiated. \n\nMy goal is not to avoid legitimate debts, but to ensure that the information being reported is accurate, complete, and supported by real documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:13:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32810","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17299756","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-17T19:13:04.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit <em>file</em> in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this <em>narrative</em> to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, <em>disputes</em> <em>filed</em>, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review."]},"sort":[8.354766,"17299756"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17300393","_score":8.352035,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit file in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this narrative to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, disputes filed, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review. This account of what happened reflects the information available to me through my credit reports, my payment history, and my attempts to resolve or correct the reporting issues with the companies involved. \n\nThe primary accounts involved are two XXXX  XXXX charge-off files, an XXXX  account that appears under Experian only, a XXXX XXXX  XXXX account, and multiple Department of Education student loan tradelines that were previously in good standing but later reported with extensive late payments. My intention is to explain how each situation unfolded, what steps I took to resolve or verify the information, and why I believe the current reporting may not accurately reflect the actual history of the accounts. \n\nXXXX XXXX Charge-Off Accounts ( Two Separate Accounts ) There are two XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts being reported as charge-offs or collections. Both list multiple late payments leading up to charge-off status, and both show closing dates around XX/XX/year>. The first account reports roughly XXXX XXXX dollars past due, while the second reports a past-due balance of over XXXX XXXX dollars. Both show a pattern of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments.\n\nThe problem is that I do not have clear records regarding the timeframe when these accounts allegedly became delinquent. I attempted several times to determine whether these accounts were valid, whether they belonged to me, or whether the balances were correctly calculated. When I first saw the late payments appearing on my credit report, I contacted XXXX XXXX to ask for billing statements, original account documentation, and clarification about when the late payments supposedly started. In those interactions, I was not provided statements or documents that clearly identified the timeline of delinquency. \n\nWhen I attempted to dispute these entries through the credit bureaus, the results of the disputes came back as verified, but no details were provided about the method of verification used. I could not obtain a clear explanation as to whether the account information was reviewed manually by XXXX XXXX, verified electronically through automated systems, or relayed through a third-party agency. I also did not receive copies of any documents XXXX XXXX may have used to justify the reporting. As a result, I have been left without the ability to understand how the company concluded the accounts were delinquent, or how the balances reached the levels reported in the charge-off entries. \n\nI also attempted to contact XXXX XXXX during the period these accounts were allegedly open in order to address any outstanding amounts, but I was not able to access or view current statements. The company did not provide detailed breakdowns of charges, payments, or fees. Because of this, I was not able to resolve the accounts proactively or verify that the amounts being reported were accurate. \n\nGiven that both accounts appear to have similar closing dates, similar patterns of late payment coding, and similar verification outcomes during disputes, I am concerned that automated reporting systems may have been used without full investigation. The unresolved questions include whether the accounts were validated with original creditor documentation, whether the delinquency dates were calculated accurately, whether the amounts are correct, and whether procedural errors occurred during updates and reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX account in question appears only on the Experian credit report. This account shows a delinquency history leading to derogatory status, including 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day late payments. The reported charge-off occurred in XXXX  with more than XXXX XXXX dollars past due. \n\nThe difficulty in addressing this XXXX account is that I do not recall receiving consistent statements, billing notices, or payment reminders during the time period in which the late payments allegedly occurred. When the account was first reported as derogatory, I attempted to obtain documentation from XXXX, including transaction history, billing dates, original loan or installment agreement information, and payment records. I did not receive detailed documentation explaining how the past-due amount was calculated or how the delinquency timeline developed. \n\nI also filed a dispute regarding this account with Experian. The result was that the account was verified, but, again, no explanation was provided about the verification method used, what documents were reviewed, or what internal procedures were followed to determine that the account was being reported accurately. I was not provided with statements, screenshots, or any form of documentation from XXXX that could help me understand the origin of the charges or validate the accuracy of the reporting. \n\nAdditionally, because XXXX operates primarily through digital invoices and app-based payment systems, there may have been email delivery issues, login issues, or missed notifications. Without being given clear documentation, I can not confirm whether I received all required notices, whether there were errors in the billing cycle, or whether the amount due is correct. These uncertainties make it difficult for me to verify the account accurately or understand how the derogatory status developed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX collection account lists a past-due amount of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dollars and is marked as derogatory. I attempted to determine the origin of this debt and contact XXXX XXXX, but I was unable to obtain full validation or documentation from the collection agency. I did not receive a detailed statement, original creditor information, or written verification of the debt within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nWhen I disputed the account with the credit bureaus, the account again returned as verified, but no documentation or explanation was provided to me. I could not determine whether the debt was assigned or purchased, whether the original creditor still maintains ownership, or whether XXXX XXXX is legally authorized to collect on the debt. Without knowing the chain of custody or the source of the information, I am unable to confirm whether the account is valid. \n\nAdditionally, the small balance of the debt raises questions, as I do not recall being notified by any creditor of an outstanding amount in that range. I also did not receive notices regarding the account being sent to collections, nor did I receive itemized statements or breakdowns of the charges. Because of this, I can not confirm whether the debt belongs to me, whether the amount is correct, or whether the reporting is accurate. \n\nStudent Loan Late Payment Reporting Multiple federal student loan accounts through the Department of Education are reporting extensive 90-day late payment histories, even though those loans have since been closed or transferred. The late payments appear to be from periods where loan servicer transitions or administrative changes may have occurred.\n\nDuring the period in which the late payments are being reported, there were changes in student loan servicing nationwide, including account transfers, forbearance periods, pandemic-related administrative adjustments, and shifting payment requirements. In my case, there were times when I completed applications for forbearance or deferment, and I believed the loans were under an administrative pause. In some cases, I did not receive timely notices from the servicer notifying me that a payment was due. \n\nWhen I reviewed my credit report and saw multiple 90 days late designations for several consecutive months on multiple loan accounts, I began attempting to resolve the issue. I contacted the loan servicer to request payment histories, notice records, and documentation showing whether bills were sent or whether payments were due during the months in question. I was not provided complete or clear documentation indicating whether the loans were in an active repayment phase, in a transferred status, or under some other administrative category during the months coded as late. \n\nI disputed the student loan late payments with the credit bureaus. The bureaus indicated that the accounts were verified, but no explanation was provided about what records were reviewed. Given the known issues during servicer transitions, I am unsure whether the servicers reporting was accurate or whether there may have been a system error, miscommunication, or reporting delay. \n\nActions I Have Taken Across all accounts, I have consistently attempted to obtain validation, statements, documentation, or clear communication from the companies involved. My actions include : Filing multiple disputes with all three credit bureaus.\n\nRequesting validation or verification of debts directly from creditors or collectors.\n\nAttempting to obtain original statements, billing notices, or transactional proof.\n\nRequesting explanation of reporting timelines and delinquency calculations.\n\nReviewing credit reports from each bureau to compare inconsistencies.\n\nAttempting to resolve or verify unresolved account histories.\n\nContacting servicers regarding student loan reporting issues.\n\nDespite these efforts, I have not received detailed information, documentation, billing statements, or clarification that would allow me to confirm that the reported entries are accurate.\n\nWhy I Believe the Reporting Is Inaccurate or Incomplete There are several reasons why I believe the information may not be accurate : Inability to obtain documentation from furnishers despite repeated attempts.\n\nLack of itemized statements clearly showing how balances were calculated.\n\nDisputes marked verified without any explanation of how verification occurred.\n\nPossible automated verification processes without manual review. \n\nLack of original creditor information in the XXXX XXXX account. \n\nPotential system errors or miscommunication during student loan transitions. \n\nInconsistent reporting between bureaus, such as the XXXX account appearing only on Experian. \n\nDifficulty determining whether accounts were assigned, sold, or transferred. \n\nBecause of these factors, I can not independently confirm the accuracy of the negative information. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting Through This Complaint Through this complaint, I am requesting that the CFPB help facilitate a more thorough review or reinvestigation of these accounts. I am asking that the companies involved provide : Clear documentation showing the basis for the reporting. \n\nCopies of billing statements, transaction history, and delinquency calculations. \n\nProof of assignment or authority to collect debts where applicable. \n\nExplanation of how verification was completed during my disputes. \n\nCorrection or removal of any information that can not be substantiated. \n\nMy goal is not to avoid legitimate debts, but to ensure that the information being reported is accurate, complete, and supported by real documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:13:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32810","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17300393","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-17T18:58:39.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Over the last several years, multiple accounts have been reported on my credit <em>file</em> in a manner that I believe contains inaccuracies, incomplete information, or procedural errors. I am submitting this <em>narrative</em> to describe the full sequence of events, including dates, actions taken, <em>disputes</em> <em>filed</em>, communications attempted, and reasons why I am requesting intervention and review."]},"sort":[8.352035,"17300393"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15971197","_score":7.2206025,"_source":{"product":"Debt or credit management","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education ( ED ). \nIm XXXX XXXX. Nelnet has delayed and obstructed basic servicing on my federal student loansincluding providing a full account history, written explanations, and timely answers. Nelnet demanded sensitive PII by email to verify but failed to proceed meaningfully after I responded, and I still dont have a complete accounting, status clarity, or assurance of accurate credit reporting. Im requesting : ( 1 ) a complete account reconstruction ( all loans, balances, interest, capitalization, payment allocation ), ( 2 ) confirmation of current repayment status and any forbearance/deferment or IDR eligibility, ( 3 ) correction/removal of any inaccurate credit reporting, and ( 4 ) a secure channel and single point of contact. ED is the creditor and ultimately responsible for servicer compliance. Please compel Nelnet/ED to provide records, correct errors, and confirm compliance. \n\n\n-- - 2 ) Full Narrative ( detailed ) Who I am & accounts : I am XXXX XXXX, borrower on federal student loans owned by the U.S. Department of Education and serviced by Nelnet. I contacted Nelnet to obtain a complete, written accounting of my loans and to resolve servicing questions ( status, balances, capitalization, payment allocation, and any credit reporting ). \n\nWhat happened : Nelnet replied requesting SSN/account/DOB for privacy verification, directing me to email XXXX. I understand privacy verification is required ; however, after supplying the requested details through their process/portal ( or offering to use a secure channel ), I have not received the complete, itemized account history or timely, substantive answers. \n\nI still lack : A full transaction ledger ( origination, disbursements, consolidations if any, payment history, interest accrual by date/rate, capitalization events, current principal/interest breakdown ). \n\nA clear statement of current status ( in repayment, deferment/forbearance, or administrative hold ) and the legal basis and dates for any status changes. \n\nWritten confirmation of IDR/PSLF eligibility or why those options are not being applied ( if applicable ). \n\nAssurance that credit reporting ( if any ) is accurate and up to date and that no adverse data was furnished while my requests were pending. \n\n\nBottom line : I have repeatedly asked for timely, accurate, and complete information about my federal loans, and Nelnet has not provided a compliant response or the full documentation needed to verify accuracy. \n\n\nWhy this is a problem : Federal student-loan servicers must provide timely and accurate information, maintain complete records, and respond to borrower inquiries with clear, written explanations and supporting documents. \n\nIf any information was furnished to consumer reporting agencies, the FCRA requires accuracy and prompt correction of disputed information. \n\nAs EDs contracted servicer, Nelnets failures ultimately reflect on ED ; consumers should not be bounced between entities. \n\n\nHarm : Ongoing uncertainty about balances and status ; risk of misapplied payments or improper capitalization ; potential credit harm if inaccurate data was reported ; and time and effort chasing basic records. I need a complete, authoritative accounting and corrections where applicable. \n\n\n\n-- - 3 ) Requested Relief ( be explicit ) I request that the CFPB require Nelnet and ED to : 1. Produce a complete account reconstruction ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) showing, for each loan : origination/disbursement, interest rates by period, daily interest accrual, capitalization events ( date/amount/cause ), payment allocation by date ( to principal/interest/fees ), current principal vs. interest, outstanding balance, and current repayment status. \n\n\n2. Provide written explanations for any deferment/forbearance/administrative holds ( with start/end dates and authority ) and confirm current repayment plan.\n\n3. Review and document IDR eligibility ( and PSLF, if applicable ), identify the best available plan, and implement it upon my election, with back-dated corrections if I was improperly steered or delayed.\n\n4. Audit and correct any credit reporting tied to these loans ; delete or adjust any inaccurate late/missed payment entries ; and furnish me written proof of all changes sent to CRAs.\n\n5. Provide a secure communications channel ( portal or encrypted method ) and assign a single point of contact with direct phone/email to resolve open items.\n\n6. Confirm all fees/charges assessed are lawful and reverse any improper amounts ; provide a waiver/credit if delays or errors were on the servicers side.\n\n7. Deliver all requested records within 30 days and a final, plain-English summary confirming that my account is accurate and in the correct status going forward.\n\n-- - 4 ) CFPB Form Selections ( what to pick ) Product : Student loan Loan type : Federal student loan Issue : Trouble with how the loan is being serviced ( e.g., Incorrect information on account / Trouble getting information / Problems when you asked to get help ) pick the closest available options Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) Mention creditor/owner in narrative : U.S. Department of Education Resolution sought : Records production ; corrected accounting ; corrected credit reporting ; clear status/plan ; secure contact ; reversal of improper charges Submitter : I am the consumer Consent to share with company : Yes ( to enable Nelnet/ED to respond ) -- - 5 ) Evidence Checklist ( attach what you can ) Nelnets email asking for verification and your reply/submission ( screenshots or XXXX ) Any Nelnet statements/letters/secure messages showing status, balances, rates, or plan Any credit report pages showing tradelines/late marks related to these loans A timeline of your contacts ( dates you wrote/called ; what you asked for ; what they sent or failed to send ) Your IDR/PSLF inquiries ( if applicable ) and any confirmations/denials Any proof of payment misapplication or unexplained capitalization Your contact info ( entered only in the portal fields ) -- - 6 ) One-paragraph version ( if the form forces brevity ) Nelnet ( for U.S. Dept. of Education ) has not provided a complete, timely accounting of my federal student loans despite multiple requests. I still lack a full transaction history, capitalization details, payment allocation, and clear current status/plan. I also need confirmation/correction of any credit reporting. Please compel Nelnet/ED to ( 1 ) provide a full account reconstruction ( XXXX  ), ( 2 ) explain any forbearance/holds and confirm my current plan/IDR eligibility, ( 3 ) correct any inaccurate credit reporting and confirm updates to CRAs, ( 4 ) reverse any improper charges, and ( 5 ) assign a secure channel and single point of contact. I want a final, clear summary within 30 days confirming my accounts are accurate and in the correct status. \n\n\nCompany : Nelnet ( servicer ) for the U.S. Department of Education. \nI am XXXX XXXX. Federal student loans were fraudulently taken out in 2009 without my consent. I have disputed this repeatedly with Nelnet and other parties for years, yet Nelnet continues to treat me as liable and allows interest to accumulate. Despite my requests, I have not received a full account reconstruction, documentation proving my consent, or correction of records. This debt is not legally mine. I request : ( 1 ) proof of consent or promissory notes, ( 2 ) immediate release of liability, ( 3 ) removal of all adverse credit reporting, and ( 4 ) refund/waiver of all amounts falsely charged. \n\n\n-- - XXXX ) Full Narrative Who I am : I am XXXX XXXX, listed as a borrower on federal student loans serviced by Nelnet on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education ( ED ).\n\nWhat happened : Student loans were taken out in XXXX without my knowledge or consent. I did not sign the Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) or authorize disbursement. I have raised this dispute with Nelnet and other third parties for years. \n\nDespite repeated complaints, Nelnet continues to treat me as legally liable, allowing interest to accumulate for over a decade on loans that were not lawfully originated. \n\nNelnet has not provided copies of signed notes, disbursement authorizations, or other documentary proof tying me to the loans. \n\nInstead, I receive form letters demanding repayment or directing me into repayment plans, which presuppose liability that I dispute. \n\nThis has caused long-term financial harm, damaged my credit, and created barriers to my career and candidacy for public office. \n\n\nWhy this is a problem : No lender or servicer may lawfully collect on a debt without proof of consent. \n\nUnder the Higher Education Act and ED servicing contracts, Nelnet is required to maintain and provide loan origination documents ( e.g., signed MPN ).\n\nContinuing to assess and capitalize interest on loans taken without consent violates basic contract principles, as well as consumer protection law. \n\nIf credit reporting has occurred, this may also violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nI have a right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( if applicable ) to request verification and to not be held liable for debts I did not incur. \n\n\nHarm suffered : More than a decade of accrued, compounding interest on a fraudulent debt. \n\nCredit damage from adverse tradelines. \n\nRepeated stress, wasted time, and financial barriers from a debt I do not legally owe. \n\n\n\n-- - 3 ) Requested Relief I request that the CFPB compel Nelnet and ED to : 1. Produce original signed documentation ( Master Promissory Note, disbursement records, consent forms ). If no such documents exist, immediately acknowledge the loans were not authorized.\n\n2. Release me from all liability and update all records accordingly.\n\n3. Cease interest accrual and remove all accumulated amounts tied to these unauthorized loans.\n\n4. Correct credit reporting delete all tradelines and adverse marks tied to these fraudulent loans.\n\n5. Refund or credit any amounts collected based on this debt.\n\n6. Provide a written statement from ED confirming that I am not legally responsible for these loans.\n\n7. Establish a secure communications channel and assign a single point of contact to resolve this matter.\n\n-- - 4 ) CFPB Form Selections Product : Student loan Loan type : Federal student loan Issue : Loan was taken out without my consent / incorrect information on account / problems with dispute resolution Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) Mention creditor : U.S. Department of Education ( ED ) Resolution sought : Release of liability, deletion of tradelines, refund/waiver of all amounts, proof of origination documents Submitter : I am the consumer -- - 5 ) Evidence Checklist Copies of all prior disputes you sent to Nelnet/ED. \n\nAny Nelnet responses ( especially form letters that ignore your liability dispute ). \n\nCredit report showing adverse tradelines tied to these loans. \n\nDocumentation showing lack of consent ( no signed MPN, no disbursement authorization ). \n\nA timeline of your disputes ( XXXX ). \n\nCourses of Action ( XXXX ) A. Loan Origination & Consent Verification ( XXXX ) 1. Produce the original Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) signed in XXXX ( if any ). \n\n\n2. Provide a copy of any consent form authorizing disbursements from that year.\n\n3. Identify the disbursing institution and verify whether it followed required ED procedures.\n\n4. Verify my identity was confirmed when the loan was originated.\n\n5. Provide all records of communication in 2009 related to the loan origination.\n\n6. Produce any affidavits or declarations attesting that I consented.\n\n7. Provide documentation of loan counseling ( if required ) that I allegedly received.\n\n8. Show evidence of how the lender verified that the address and SSN were correct.\n\n9. Produce a signature sample comparison ( if signature exists ).\n\n10. Identify any witnesses to the signing or issuance of the loan.\n\n11. Provide copies of all notices required by law at origination ( e.g., borrower rights, repayment options ).\n\n12. Show whether any power of attorney or guardianship was used.\n\n13. Provide copies of all disbursement schedules tied to the loans.\n\n14. Provide all promissory note amendments or consolidations.\n\n15. Identify any consolidation loans into which these loans may have been rolled.\n\n16. Provide a timeline of all disbursements, interest accrual, and capitalization events.\n\n17. Confirm whether the origination complied with HEA ( Higher Education Act ) requirements.\n\n18. Provide any state law disclosures required in 2009.\n\n19. Prove chain of title if the loan was sold or transferred.\n\n20. Confirm no fraudulent signatures or identity theft investigations were performed.\n\nB. Full Account Reconstruction ( XXXX ) XXXX. Produce a detailed transaction ledger from 2009 to present. \n\n\n22. Show interest rates in effect over time, by period.\n\n23. Record all payments madeprincipal, interest, feeswith date allocation.\n\n24. Show all capitalization events ( when interest was added to principal ), with dates and amounts.\n\n25. Provide an amortization schedule or calculation.\n\n26. Compute daily interest accrual.\n\n27. Provide calculations showing what I would have owed if no interest accrued ( hypothetical ).\n\n28. Show what my balance would be under each possible repayment plan.\n\n29. Provide all notices of delinquency or default sent to me.\n\n30. Show any subsidies or deferments applied.\n\n31. Provide records of any forbearance or suspension.\n\n32. Provide records of any administrative holds.\n\n33. Provide records of any refund or credit.\n\n34. Provide statements/emails showing required disclosure of fees.\n\n35. Provide all correspondence about loan status.\n\n36. Provide breakdown of fees charged ( origination, late, default, collection ).\n\n37. Provide payment allocation method used ( toward interest vs. principal ).\n\n38. Provide proof of proper disclosures under federal law.\n\n39. Provide my current balance : principal, interest, fees, capitalized amounts.\n\n40. Show whether any payments were misapplied.\n\n41. Provide reconciliation between what I paid vs. what the account shows.\n\n42. Provide monthly statements or notices ( if required ).\n\n43. Provide notices of rights under IDR/PSLF ( if required ).\n\n44. Provide past payment plan documents.\n\n45. Show how extra payments ( if any ) were credited.\n\n46. Provide records of current repayment status.\n\n47. Provide notice of any late fees or penalties and their basis.\n\n48. Provide proof of mailing ( or electronic delivery ) of all required statements.\n\n49. Provide disclosures of default rights.\n\n50. Provide proof that I was notified of all required rights ( e.g., deferment, loan forgiveness programs ).\n\nC. Credit Reporting & FCRA Compliance ( XXXX ) 51. Confirm whether any negative reporting to credit bureaus occurred.\n\n52. If yes, provide which bureau ( s ), which tradelines, on what dates.\n\n53. Remove or correct any adverse tradelines resulting from unauthorized/incorrect debt.\n\n54. Send proof to bureaus that corrections were made.\n\n55. Provide copies of all credit bureau reports in which my loans appear.\n\n56. Provide all furnisher documentation ( information provided to bureaus ).\n\n57. Confirm whether you reported interest that accrued illegally.\n\n58. Provide written confirmation of what was sent in dispute letters.\n\n59. Provide correspondence with credit bureaus about dispute.\n\n60. Provide any credit repair or remediation undertaken.\n\n61. Confirm that no further reporting will occur until this is resolved.\n\n62. Provide credit reporting history from 2009 forward.\n\n63. Provide any automated adverse action notices sent due to reporting.\n\n64. Provide whether any collections agency was involved in reporting.\n\n65. Provide records of any fees or collections forwarded to agencies.\n\n66. Provide dispute escalation logs for credit reporting.\n\n67. Provide records of any fees for credit report copies.\n\n68. Provide sample translated notices if non-English required.\n\n69. Provide documentation showing compliance with FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2.\n\n70. Provide policy for how Nelnet corrects furnishing errors.\n\nD. Communication, Dispute Process & Customer Access ( 71-95 ) 71. Provide secure means of communication ( portal/email ) documented.\n\n72. Assign a single individual as point of contact for my case.\n\n73. Provide transcripts or logs of phone calls related to my disputes.\n\n74. Provide email threads or message records.\n\n75. Provide dates when I made requests and Nelnets responses.\n\n76. Provide notice log showing when and how notices were delivered.\n\n77. Provide content of any written denials or explanations.\n\n78. Provide policy for turnaround time on borrower dispute requests.\n\n79. Provide whether Nelnet offered IDR or PSLF options.\n\n80. Provide written delivery receipts of bills or notices.\n\n81. Provide sample notices used for late or missed payments.\n\n82. Provide audit log of who accessed my customer profile.\n\n83. Provide security/privacy notifications sent to me.\n\n84. Provide customer complaint history related to similar origin-of-loan issues.\n\n85. Provide documentation of Nelnets escalations and internal reviews.\n\n86. Provide disclosures required under HEA/TEACHING regulations.\n\n87. Provide documentation of required annual notices.\n\n88. Provide records of default collection attempts.\n\n89. Provide records of student loan servicing oversight audits.\n\n90. Provide data on how many borrowers disputed origin-of-loan claims and resolution rates.\n\n91. Provide policy copies about debt collection communication frequency.\n\n92. Provide transcripts or recordings of any in-person meetings ( if applicable ).\n\n93. Provide disclosure of any internal investigation into identity theft/fraud regarding my account.\n\n94. Provide notice of rights under FDCPA ( if applicable ).\n\n95. Provide customer service scripts or guidelines used when denying origin consent.\n\nE. Regulatory, Legal & Policy Compliance ( 96-125 ) 96. Confirm compliance with ED servicing agreement obligations.\n\n97. Provide EDs oversight reports for Nelnets performance.\n\n98. Provide audit or compliance reviews by ED documenting issues.\n\n99. Provide copies of any FSA Ombudsman determinations relating to my loans.\n\n100. Provide all applicable federal statutes e.g., HEA, Title IV, 34 CFR 685 etc.\n\n101. Provide your policy for proving identity theft or fraudulent origin.\n\n102. Provide legal opinions you relied on for insisting on liability.\n\n103. Confirm compliance with statute of limitations where applicable.\n\n104. Provide policies on retention/destruction of origination records.\n\n105. Provide your internal legal analyses of borrowers disputing origin.\n\n106. Provide your attorneys interpretations of arbitration / dispute clauses.\n\n107. Provide documentation you rely on for refusing to honor IDR or forgiveness programs.\n\n108. Provide your governing contract with ED showing what Nelnet is responsible for.\n\n109. Provide FSA/ED guidance cited in that contract.\n\n110. Provide EDs written policies on loan disputes and fraud.\n\n111. Provide policy guidance on interest capitalization.\n\n112. Provide legal basis for capitalizing interest while dispute unresolved.\n\n113. Provide HEA guidance on borrower rights.\n\n114. Provide waiver or discharge policies and how they apply to unauthorized origin loans.\n\n115. Provide legal precedent or case law used in your decision.\n\n116. Provide policy on how Nelnet investigates claims of non-consensual origination.\n\n117. Provide EDs oversight metrics and penalties for servicers who fail.\n\n118. Provide your compliance with federal consumer protection laws ( FTC Act, TILA etc if any cross-applicable ).\n\n119. Provide policy on preventing discrimination or unfair targeting ( political belief etc ).\n\n120. Provide certifications or attestations that data privacy laws are complied with ( FERPA, other ).\n\n121. Provide legal review logs ( internal counsel advice memos ).\n\n122. Provide your policy for notifying borrowers about pending account closure or legal liability.\n\n123. Provide policy regarding contending assumption of debt without debt-origin documentation.\n\n124. Provide policy on disputing closed claims and releasing borrowers from misattributed liability.\n\n125. Provide your policy on customer restitution when errors committed.\n\nF. Refunds, Compensation & Financial Remedies ( 126-150 ) 126. Refund all interest accrued on loans taken without my consent.\n\n127. Waive all principal and interest on debts for which no promissory note exists.\n\n128. Remove all associated fees, penalties, late charges.\n\n129. Credit my account for any overpayments made.\n\n130. Recompute balance under no-debt scenario if origin not proven.\n\n131. Adjust any tax reporting ( 1098-E, etc. ) if required.\n\n132. Remove any collection agency charges.\n\n133. Cover cost of disputes ( phone, mail, time ).\n\n134. Compensate for credit score impact.\n\n135. Cover attorneys fees ( if I hire counsel ).\n\n136. Provide monetary compensation for emotional distress.\n\n137. Provide compensation for lost opportunities ( if campaign or job disrupted ).\n\n138. Provide punitive damages if lawfully permitted.\n\n139. Refund any charges for credit report copies if required.\n\n140. Compensate me for time lost gathering documentation.\n\n141. Compensation for late/unjust debt collections.\n\n142. Compensation for being denied or delayed IDR or forgiveness options.\n\n143. Assign a lump-sum settlement for harm done.\n\n144. Provide non-monetary compensation ( e.g., certificate or public acknowledgment if appropriate ).\n\n145. Provide clear, written apology.\n\n146. Agree to cover any costs I incur due to credit repair.\n\n147. Provide budget for oversight compliance.\n\n148. Offer settlement check or payment to cover all relevant taxes.\n\n149. Provide checks or payments for any garnishments, wage offsets wrongly made.\n\n150. Cover cost of verifying origin ( e.g., legal cover, document retrieval ).\n\n151. Reimburse any third-party disbursement or default fee.\n\n152. Provide my account statement free of fee for entire timeline.\n\n153. Provide zero-interest payment plan if reinstated.\n\n154. Provide retroactive forbearance credit if delay from Nelnet.\n\n155. Provide clear yearly statements going forward at no charge.\n\n156. Provide ongoing monitoring of credit report status.\n\n157. Provide guarantee that future servicing will not breach my rights.\n\n158. Supply written policy revisions and post them publicly.\n\n159. Present independent third-party audit or oversight of this case if requested.\n\n160. Produce a notarized affidavit from the employee who first opened the account file in 2009 ( or statement that no such employee exists ).\n\n161. Provide chain-of-custody logs for any physical documents ( MPNs, signed forms ) that you claim prove origination.\n\n162. Deliver a forensic image ( hash-signed ) of the database table row ( s ) that contain my account record as of each year-end 20092024.\n\n163. Produce the schema definition for the account table ( s ) that store borrower identity and loan metadata.\n\n164. Provide the DBA/DBMS logs showing the exact SQL operations that created or modified my account record.\n\n165. Provide certificate-signed hashes ( SHA-256 ) of all produced native files so integrity can be independently verified.\n\n166. Provide any OCR/scan-to-text output files for paper originals plus the raw scanned images.\n\n167. Produce proof of chain verification for any digital signature applied to origination documents.\n\n168. Produce records of any third-party identity verification vendor used ( contract + verification instance for my identity ).\n\n169. Provide results of any fraud-analytics retrospective review run against my account ( false-positive/false-negative analysis ).\n\n170. Provide the retention schedule applied to my origination documents and show whether any files were destroyed under that schedule.\n\n171. Produce log of any document destruction events for records tied to my account, with authorized approver and method.\n\n172. Provide the full version history ( diffs ) for any document that was modified ( eg MPN amendments ).\n\n173. Produce timestamped audit trail of any manual redactions applied to documents produced in discovery.\n\n174. Provide a legally-certified translation of any non-English material relied on in the origination process.\n\n175. Produce the ID verification algorithm output ( proof tokens, vendor score, acceptance threshold ) used at origination.\n\n176. Deliver the code snippet or query used to generate the account closed flag for my record, with comments.\n\n177. Provide all business rules that map detection triggers to closure outcomes, with effective dates.\n\n178. Produce copies of all training datasets used to train any ML model that flagged my account ( with sensitive PII redacted if necessary ).\n\n179. Provide model drift analyses showing performance changes of closure models since XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce a signed certification from the Chief Data Officer that no backdoor overrides were used to force this closure.\n\n181. Produce the full ticket history including internal severity codes, root cause analysis, and SLA timestamps for every support/ticket number related to my account.\n\n182. Produce a list of all service desk approvers who authorized final closure, with their approval timestamps.\n\n183. Provide the exact policy text that was presented to frontline staff when they executed the closure.\n\n184. Produce a copy of any external legal demand, court order, or subpoena that referenced my account ( if any ).\n\n185. Provide the raw logs of any automated remediation scripts executed against my account ( cron jobs, patches ).\n\n186. Produce the last three change management approvals that touched compliance decision-making systems used in my case.\n\n187. Provide the full PII access request log ( who requested access, justification, outcome ) for all access events for my file.\n\n188. Produce the complete list of IP addresses that connected to my account within 30 days prior to closure and the geolocation mapping for each.\n\n189. Provide forensic device identifiers ( device fingerprinting ) used to associate sessions to my account at time of alleged suspicious activity.\n\n190. Produce all analytic dashboards and export data that displayed my accounts risk score on each relevant date.\n\n191. Provide an independent third-party attestation that the closure workflow complied with your written procedures ( attestor name, scope ).\n\n192. Produce all redaction keys used to anonymize any produced documents so we can verify redactions were not substantive.\n\n193. Produce the auditable payroll/timecard records demonstrating how many hours staff spent investigating my case and the cost attributed.\n\n194. Provide the chain of custody and transfer records for any funds held, including bank account, ACH file IDs, settlement files.\n\n195. Produce audit logs of all exports of my data to any third party ( CSV/XML ) including recipient and purpose.\n\n196. Provide any internal legal memos assessing whether closure of a political candidates account could trigger FEC or First Amendment issues.\n\n197. Produce the list of all accounts that were closed the same day with the same reason code and the aggregate statistical justification.\n\n198. Provide a statistical false-positive rate for the closure reason code as applied in the prior 24 months.\n\n199. Produce a signed statement from the CEO or General Counsel certifying that the action was not based on political viewpoint.\n\n200. Provide copies of all external communications to vendors about my account ( email chains, portal messages ).\n\n201. Produce a formal root-cause analysis ( RCA ) for the closure decision with corrective action plan and responsible owners identified.\n\n202. Provide the escalation log showing every internal stakeholder briefed ( names/dates ) with their responses.\n\n203. Produce a redline history showing any policy text that was changed in response to past complaints about wrongful closures.\n\n204. Provide a list of all users/agents who had the authority to reverse a closure and show whether any reversal was attempted for my account.\n\n205. Produce confirmation of any hold placed on reporting to credit agencies during dispute and the start/end timestamps.\n\n206. Provide evidence that no adverse inference was drawn from my public political activity ( emails, memos showing political neutrality review ).\n\n207. Produce a list of every supervisory call ( recording or transcript ) where my case was discussed with senior management.\n\n208. Provide a corrective action metric showing percentage reduction in wrongful closures over past 12 months and link to remediation.\n\n209. Produce an offer to fund an independent audit by a mutually agreed firm ( with scope ) and agree to accept the auditors binding remediation recommendations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-02T19:29:53.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","sub_product":"Student loan debt relief","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15971197","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-17T04:34:10.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["/owner in <em>narrative</em> : U.S."]},"sort":[7.2206025,"15971197"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":27,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":27}]}},"product":{"doc_count":27,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":11}]}},{"key":"Credit 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":4},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":27,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":11,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":8},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":5,"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":5}]}},{"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 your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","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}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":27,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":27}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":27,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":17},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":27,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":27}]}},"company":{"doc_count":27,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":6},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deutsche Bank","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"ShoulderTap Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Fizz","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":27,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"GA","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"MO","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":27,"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":18},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":27,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[7.219262,"15971197"]}}}