{"took":149,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":78,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18523332","_score":20.39388,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Issue : Systemic Failure to Conduct Individualized Investigations, Misrepresentation of Complaints, and Obstruction of a Valid Chargeback ( CareCredit acct # XXXX ). \n\nPurpose of This Escalation : This submission is a procedural and regulatory escalation, not a duplicate complaint. \n\nIt is prompted by the respondents repeated failure to engage in good faith with multiple, distinct CFPB complaints filed on different dates, each addressing separate violations, which the respondent improperly collapsed into a single recycled response packet from Synchrony Bank. \n\nThis pattern mirrors how the respondent mishandled the underlying billing dispute and chargeback itself : by evading evidence, ignoring timelines, and substituting conclusory denials for investigation.\n\nII. Multiple Distinct Complaints Were Filed Not Duplicates I filed separate CFPB complaints as new violations occurred. Each complaint had a different factual basis, different date of harm, and different regulatory concern. These include, but are not limited to : XX/XX/XXXX Failure to properly investigate and engage with evidence related to denied hospital services and billing integrity. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Discovery that my account had been closed during an active dispute, without advance notice, and without any legitimate basis communicated to me. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Complaint regarding the concealment of a critical hospital response letter that had been relied upon to deny my dispute but was never disclosed to me during the dispute process available to them since XXXX of 2024. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Complaint regarding post-closure misconduct, including tradeline disappearance, contradictory explanations, and retroactive narrative changes. \n\nEach complaint arose from new conduct. None were restatements of earlier grievances. \n\nXXXX. Respondents Improper One-Packet Response Strategy Despite the distinct nature of these complaints, the respondent answered all of them with : The same response letter ( XXXX ) The same attachments The same generalized denials No acknowledgment of new facts, dates, or allegations This response strategy demonstrates : No individualized review No complaint-specific investigation No engagement with evidence submitted No attempt to address the actual regulatory violations raised This is not a clerical oversight. It is a systemic practice that renders the CFPB complaint process meaningless in this case. \n\nIV. This Procedural Failure Mirrors the Mishandling of the Underlying Dispute The respondents CFPB conduct is consistent with how it handled the original chargeback : Evidence was ignored or requested repeatedly despite already being on file Timelines were compressed unrealistically ( e.g., a reinvestigation reopened on XX/XX/XXXX and closed again by XX/XX/XXXX, without substantive engagement ) Decisions were made without addressing the consumers submissions Conclusions were asserted without explanation A legitimate investigation, whether of a billing dispute or a CFPB complaint, requires actual engagement with the records. That did not occur at any stage. \n\nV. Concealment of Critical Evidence Undermined the Dispute From the Start A hospital response letter, relied upon to deny my dispute, was concealed from me for months and only disclosed after regulatory pressure and FOIA obligations forced its release nearly a year later. \n\nBecause this letter was withheld : I was denied the opportunity to rebut false hospital assertions in real time I could not submit counter-evidence during the active dispute The denial was procedurally tainted from inception The respondent can not claim a fair or complete investigation when it relied on evidence that was never shared with the consumer. \n\nVI. Retaliatory Account Closure During an Active Dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered ; not through notice, but through being locked out of online access, that my account had been closed during an ongoing dispute. \n\nI was given contradictory explanations, including : That the account was closed because I requested a dispute ( which had been ongoing since the prior year ) That the account was closed due to being over the limit, despite the over-limit status being caused by fees and charges added during active investigations No advance notice was provided. No written justification was sent contemporaneously. \n\nXXXX. Fabricated Fraud / New Account Narrative Explicitly Disclaimed I did not : File a fraud complaint at any time Request a fraud investigation Request a new account Consent to a new account number Receive a new card Receive mailed notice of any new account Any account allegedly created after the closure of my original account was created without my consent and without my initiation. \n\nI explicitly reject and disclaim : Any assertion that I initiated a fraud claim Any request that I submit sworn affidavits or contact identity theft services for a claim I never made This appears to be an attempt to : Erase the history of the original dispute Sever continuity with the account I actually held and its link to regulatory complaints. \n\nUndermine the credibility of my longstanding billing complaint VIII. The Underlying Chargeback Was Always Valid The original dispute concerned service failures and billing integrity, not fraud. \n\nDenied or improperly rendered services were billed, disputed promptly, and supported with documentation. This should have been a straightforward chargeback. \n\nInstead, the respondent : Avoided addressing the merits Relied on concealed third-party assertions Escalated fees during investigations Closed the account mid-dispute Introduced a false fraud narrative only after regulatory complaints were filed This sequence demonstrates evasion, not investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-07T06:01:44.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18523332","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-01-07T05:27:56.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/XXXX Discovery that my account had <em>been</em> closed during an <em>active</em> <em>dispute</em>, without advance notice, and without any legitimate basis communicated to me. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX <em>Complaint</em> regarding the concealment of a critical hospital response letter that had <em>been</em> relied upon to deny my <em>dispute</em> but was never disclosed to me during the <em>dispute</em> process available to them since XXXX of 2024."]},"sort":[20.39388,"18523332"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18523730","_score":20.19347,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CareCredit / Synchrony Bank Account Ending in XXXX ( Only Account Acknowledged ) XXXX. Scope and Identification of Account This escalation concerns CareCredit, a Synchrony Bank product, and only XXXX account : Account ending in XXXX. \n\nI do not acknowledge, recognize, or accept the existence of any other account number allegedly created after the closure of this account. I did not request, authorize, or consent to any new account, card, or account number, and I did not file any fraud complaint. \n\nAny reference by CareCredit or Synchrony Bank to a new account or fraud investigation is expressly disclaimed and rejected. \n\nXXXX. Nature of the Original Dispute A Valid Chargeback The underlying dispute on Account XXXX was a chargeback based on service failure and billing errors, never fraud. \n\nSpecifically : Services billed by the hospital were not rendered as represented and/or were incomplete. \n\nBilling accuracy and integrity were disputed. \n\nDocumentation was provided repeatedly. \n\nCareCredit/Synchrony responded by stating they : Can not judge quality of services, and Relied on hospital signatures and statements denying wrongdoing. \n\nA providers denial and a signed financial agreement do not constitute an investigation. \n\nRefusing to assess service failure or billing errors does not defeat a chargeback ; it avoids it. \n\nThis was, from the outset, a legitimate chargeback complaint that should have been granted or, at minimum, substantively evaluated. \n\nXXXX. Procedural Mishandling Mirrors the Substantive Failure The same defects appear repeatedly : Recycling the same denial language Ignoring evidence already on file Requesting documents already submitted Issuing conclusory denials without engagement This mirrors how CareCredit/Synchrony later responded to multiple CFPB complaints, by collapsing distinct issues into XXXX generic packet, showing no individualized review. \n\nXXXX Retaliatory Account Closure Without Notice On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Account XXXX was closed without advance notice and without legitimate cause. \n\nAt the time : There were no late payments nor are there any right now. \n\nThe account was in active dispute Any over-limit status was caused by fees and charges added during investigations, which should not have occurred I discovered the closure only on XX/XX/XXXX, when I was locked out of online access. \n\nThe explanations I was given were contradictory and false. \n\nXXXX Fabricated Fraud Narrative Explicitly Rejected After CareCredit/Synchrony were questioned ( including through CFPB complaints ) about the improper account closure, they introduced a false fraud narrative. \n\nThey claimed : I requested a fraud investigation A new account was opened for security reasons Fraud denials were issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX This is false. \n\nI did not : Request a fraud investigation Report fraud by phone, mail, website, or complaint Ask for a new account Receive a new card Receive mailed notice of any new account Submit any fraud affidavit Contact identity theft services Yet CareCredit/Synchrony proceeded to : Issue fraud denial letters through CFPB responses Pressure me to swear affidavits and report identity theft * * * Continue advancing this narrative to regulators as fact * * * * This appears to be a post-hoc fabrication designed to justify an otherwise unjustifiable account closure and to sever the dispute history tied to Account XXXX. \n\nXXXX. Direct Regulatory Question Demand for Proof CareCredit and Synchrony Bank should be required to answer the following : When exactly was the alleged fraud request made? \n\nBy what method ( phone, mail, website, written complaint )? \n\nWhat proof exists that I initiated it? \n\nWhy do fraud denials exist for a claim I never filed? \n\nAdvancing a fabricated fraud claim to regulators is a serious compliance violation. Fraud is a major red flag ; lying about it undermines the credibility of every other assertion the company makes. \n\nXXXX. Pattern of Misrepresentation to Regulators I previously filed a CFPB complaint specifically addressing CareCredit/Synchronys attempt to coerce me into adopting their fraud narrative. Despite this, they continue to present it as fact. \n\nThey also responded to multiple CFPB complaints filed on different dates, involving different violations, with a single recycled response packet, demonstrating : No individualized investigation No timeline-specific analysis No good-faith engagement This pattern confirms that : The dispute investigation was never legitimate, and The CFPB complaint responses were likewise noncompliant. \n\nXXXX. Regulatory Concerns Raised This escalation raises serious concerns regarding : Failure to conduct good-faith chargeback investigations Concealment of material third-party evidence * * * Retaliatory account closure during an active dispute * * * Fabrication of a fraud narrative * * * Unauthorized account creation * * * Misrepresentation to regulators Abuse of the CFPB complaint response process","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-07T06:30:56.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18523730","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-01-07T06:02:04.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This was, from the outset, a legitimate chargeback <em>complaint</em> that should <em>have</em> <em>been</em> granted or, at minimum, substantively evaluated. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[20.19347,"18523730"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18910531","_score":19.46992,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT BANK OF AMERICA ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) Complaint narrative ( copy/paste for CFPB portal ) I am filing a comprehensive complaint against Bank of America for systemic consumer-finance misconduct involving : ( 1 ) deceptive inducement and improper credit inquiry ; ( 2 ) Regulation E error-resolution violations relating to an unauthorized transaction dispute, not providing provisional credit in timely manner ; ( 3 ) ongoing account fee charging and harmful account treatment while a dispute remained active ; ( 4 ) obstruction, contradictory communications, and refusal to disclose internal investigation records ; and ( 5 ) downstream financial, credit, and business harm caused by Bank of Americas failure to follow required dispute-handling procedures. \n\nA. Deceptive small-business offer and improper credit handling ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ). \nIn or about XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of Americas Small Business Team sent me a promotional XXXX partnership offer advertising incentives/bonuses and a statement credit for opening a business account and applying for a small business credit product. I applied in good faith. Bank of America immediately denied the application but performed a hard credit inquiry despite apparent foreknowledge or likelihood of denial. The bank did not provide a proper adverse-action notice. This conduct constitutes deceptive inducement, unfair credit handling, and consumer harm. \n\nB. Regulation E dispute mishandling unauthorized transaction claim ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  onward ). \nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer under Regulation E. Bank of America opened the claim but repeatedly failed to provide meaningful documentation, case updates, or consistent investigation information. I submitted supporting evidence on or about XX/XX/XXXX. Bank personnel gave contradictory statements about whether evidence was received or reviewed, including blaming me for supposed submission/fax issues, while a Regulation E specialist confirmed the evidence was reviewed. Bank personnel also provided contradictory denial rationales and shifting narratives regarding investigation steps. \n\nC. Escalation obstruction and contradictory internal representations ( XXXX XXXX ). \nMultiple Bank of America representatives caused procedural confusion and obstructed resolution. I was transferred incorrectly when requesting a Regulation E specialist, then later told by other personnel that earlier transfers were wrong and had to be corrected. A dispute team representative confirmed on or about XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  that the claim would be resubmitted/reconsidered, yet it was not processed. A fraud department agent later stated my evidence/notes were reviewed only after the claim and blamed me for procedural deficiencies, while a Regulation E specialist confirmed review occurred. A supervisor-level agent ( XXXX ) misrepresented provisional credit procedures and then terminated the call while I was clarifying claim details. These events show a pattern of unreliable process narratives, misrepresentation, and interference with dispute rights. \n\nD. Unlawful fee charging / account harm while dispute active and liability unresolved ( ongoing ).\n\nWhile the dispute remained active and liability had not been determined, Bank of America continued charging my account and treating the account as collectible and fee-generating. I have been charged while the bank simultaneously failed to properly conclude the error-resolution process. If the account was closed, I was not provided proper notice. If it remains open, the banks continued charging and collection-style communications during an active dispute constitutes abusive interference with consumer rights and further financial harm. \n\nE. Refusal to disclose internal logs, case notes, and accountability records.\n\nWhen I requested internal logs, investigation notes, or any disciplinary/accountability information relating to mishandling, Bank of America refused or deflected. This appears to be deliberate record suppression and obstruction, preventing verification of what the bank actually did versus what it claims it did. \n\nF. Harm and systemic impact.\n\nBank of Americas conduct caused continued financial harm ( fees, negative balance effects, restricted access to funds ), interference with dispute rights, emotional distress, time loss, and severe disruption to business operations. The banks mishandling contributed to a cascading chain of consumer harm including credit impacts, inability to transact normally, and additional downstream processor/credit/banking issues. This conduct reflects a pattern of unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. \n\nThis complaint concerns violations and misconduct implicating Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), the Consumer Financial Protection Act / UDAAP standards ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ), the FTC Acts deception standards, and credit-handling duties including FCRA-related issues regarding inquiry/data use. I request CFPB supervisory review and enforcement-level scrutiny due to repeated contradictory representations and ongoing harm. \nBank of Americas actions show an intentional pattern : contradictory narratives, fabricated procedural blame, refusal to disclose records, and continued fee-charging while a legally protected dispute remained active. This is not a good-faith error-resolution process it is systematic interference with consumer rights and a UDAAP-level compliance failure.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-22T01:50:21.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18910531","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-22T01:37:13.000Z","state":"RI","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":["These events show a pattern of unreliable process <em>narratives</em>, misrepresentation, and interference with <em>dispute</em> rights. \n\nD. Unlawful fee charging / account harm while <em>dispute</em> <em>active</em> and liability unresolved ( ongoing ).\n\nWhile the <em>dispute</em> remained <em>active</em> and liability had not <em>been</em> determined, Bank of America continued charging my account and treating the account as collectible and fee-generating."]},"sort":[19.46992,"18910531"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14470652","_score":18.05328,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this CFPB complaint against TransUnion for their continued failure to maintain accurate and verifiable information on my consumer credit report. Despite multiple disputes and attempts to resolve these issues directly with the bureau, the following inaccurate, unverifiable, and damaging items remain on my TransUnion credit report in violation of federal law, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681 et seq. \nWrong Address Reporting : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX Issue : This address is being falsely reported on my credit file by TransUnion. I have never resided at this address nor have I used it for any financial or personal purposes. Its presence is causing confusion, misrepresentation, and linking my credit profile to unknown data. \nViolation of Law : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Section 607 ( b ), TransUnion is obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy in the information it includes in credit reports. Failing to remove a clearly incorrect address after my multiple disputes violates this federal responsibility.\n\nNarrative : I am a victim of serious reporting errors that have impacted my credit reputation and exposed me to potential fraud risk. Despite prior disputes, TransUnion continues to report this false address, disregarding my identity verification documents. This ongoing negligence is putting my financial security at risk and causing me emotional distress. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$4700.00} Issue : This account reflects late payments, which are inaccurately reported. I have made all payments as agreed or was in an authorized deferment period.\n\nViolation of Law : FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires furnishers not to report inaccurate information. Additionally, 15 U.S.C. 1681i mandates TransUnion to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a dispute is filed.\n\nNarrative : Despite submitting documentation showing my loans were in deferment or forbearance, TransUnion continues to list this account as late. This misinformation is harming my XXXX XXXX and limiting my financial opportunities. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$3500.00} Issue : Late payment entries are incorrect as I was in a federally approved forbearance program during the periods in question. \nViolation of Law : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) requires credit bureaus to ensure accuracy. Reporting missed payments during approved forbearance directly violates this standard. \nNarrative : I repeatedly asked XXXX and TransUnion to validate and correct this, providing evidence of forbearance approval. TransUnions refusal to properly investigate violates my rights and continues to damage my credit reputation. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$1900.00} Issue : This account has late payment notations that were never verified and are inaccurate. \nViolation of Law : FCRA Sections 611 and 623 require proper investigation and correction upon dispute.\n\nNarrative : I have requested validation and provided proof, but TransUnion failed to correct the erroneous data, demonstrating non-compliance and willful negligence. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$7100.00} Issue : Reported as delinquent during a deferment period that was fully authorized. \nViolation of Law : Reporting derogatory information during a valid deferment period constitutes a violation of the CARES Act and the FCRA.\n\nNarrative : My federal loan was in deferment during the reported delinquency. I have submitted multiple disputes with documentation, yet TransUnion continues to publish false derogatory marks. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$3800.00} Issue : TransUnion is inaccurately reporting late payments while my account was in active deferment. \nViolation of Law : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) mandates reinvestigation and correction of disputed inaccuracies. \nNarrative : XXXX has verified my deferment, yet TransUnion refuses to update or remove the inaccurate information. This is causing me reputational and financial damage, particularly in loan application rejections. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$7100.00} Issue : False reporting of late payments, which contradicts forbearance records Ive provided. \nViolation of Law : FCRA and CARES Act protections were ignored. Reporting negative information during forbearance is deceptive and illegal. \nNarrative : Ive suffered financial harm due to this misinformation, including a denied mortgage pre-approval. My dispute has been ignored and the data remains unchanged despite my evidence. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$3700.00} Issue : The account reflects inaccurate late payment reporting. I was under hardship forbearance at the time, which I documented. \nViolation of Law : The FCRAs duty to ensure maximum accuracy ( Section 607 ( b ) ) and proper reinvestigation ( Section 611 ) were not followed.\n\nNarrative : TransUnion has shown disregard for federally mandated borrower protections. Their reporting has directly caused credit score damage and emotional distress. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$160.00} Issue : Late payment entries are false, as payments were either current or in a temporary COVID-related deferment. \nViolation of Law : This is a violation of the FCRA and CARES Act protections under Section 4021.\n\nNarrative : TransUnion 's failure to align with federal guidance during the pandemic has led to false reporting and negative consequences in my credit profile. Despite providing proof, no action was taken to fix it. \nConclusion : I am submitting this CFPB complaint due to TransUnions ongoing failure to fulfill its legal obligations under the FCRA and related consumer protection laws. Despite my formal disputes, TransUnion continues to report false addresses and misrepresents multiple XXXX student loan accounts with inaccurate late payments. These errors are severely impacting my credit profile, financial access, and mental well-being. I request immediate reinvestigation and permanent deletion of the inaccurate address and all XXXX late payment entries from my credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-04T14:25:43.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"27615","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14470652","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-04T14:14:00.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Narrative</em> : My federal loan was in deferment during the reported delinquency. I <em>have</em> submitted <em>multiple</em> <em>disputes</em> with documentation, yet TransUnion continues to publish false derogatory marks. \nXXXX Account : XXXX | Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Balance : {$3800.00} Issue : TransUnion is inaccurately reporting late payments while my account was in <em>active</em> deferment. \nViolation of Law : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) mandates reinvestigation and correction of <em>disputed</em> inaccuracies."]},"sort":[18.05328,"14470652"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6042938","_score":17.569769,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I filed a CFPB complaint XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX stating : \" I received an initial letter in XXXX telling me that as of XX/XX/XXXX, my student loans would be XXXX due to total and permanent XXXX. Then I received another letter in XXXX confirming the loans will be XXXX again. XXXX XXXX XXXX loans. XXXX remain with Navient on my credit report and still show open and Navient is still trying to collect even though I have shown everyone I have complained to these letters. Navient is impossible to get on the phone and when they do, they refer you to aidvantage. Aidvantage is not reporting on my credit open loans, Navient is reporting XXXX loans that have been XXXX even though they have been XXXX. Reporting this to the credit bureaus has done nothing. '' Navient called me and told me that the loans would be immediately XXXX after they received the complaint and that no further action would be needed. This was a lie because they then responded to the CFPB complaint by stating : \" Thank you for reaching out to the CFPB with your concerns regarding your student loan account. Navient currently services XXXX Federal Stafford Loans for you. Our records reflect that in XX/XX/XXXX, we received notice from XXXX that your request for Total and Permanent Disability Discharge ( TPDD ) was approved. As a result, a claim was filed with your loans guarantor on XX/XX/XXXX. Please keep in mind that Navient has XXXX from the notification date to file the claim. In turn, the guarantor has XXXX from the date the claim was filed to review and pay the claim. Once the claim payment has been received, your balance will be reduced to {$0.00}, and your loans will be transferred to XXXX. You will receive notification of these actions at that time. An update will then be sent to the consumer reporting agencies advising that your loans have been closed and transferred. However, until the claim is paid, your loans will still reflect active balances and remain open on your credit report. Navient reports student loans individually to the consumer reporting agencies. This reporting is consistent with industry standards. If you have an account with multiple loans, youll see each loan reported with its own tradeline. Simply put, a tradeline is a descriptive summary of a particular loans history and status. XXXX  information can include the name of the company reporting the account, account open date, account status ( open, closed, past due, etc. ), balance owed, payment history and narratives. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires lenders and servicers, such as Navient, who report information to the consumer reporting agencies to do so with accuracy. Therefore, we can not remove accurate information from your credit report. We have updated your credit report to reflect your disputed loans as follows : FCRA direct dispute investigation completed consumer disagrees with the results of the data furnishers investigation. Because you disputed the account information we reported to the consumer reporting agencies, we are required to inform them of your dispute when we continue to send them updates. When we do this, the consumer reporting agencies will place the above narrative on your credit report to reflect that your account was previously disputed Please note that the update pertains only to each open loan noted in your dispute. If you wish to have this narrative removed from your credit report, call or write to us at the Office of the Customer Advocate, po box XXXX, XXXX XXXX PA, XXXX. Please include your name, address, and account/loan number ( XXXX ), and indicate that you wish to have the dispute narrative removed from your credit report. '' It is now XX/XX/XXXX. This means the timeframe mentioned by Navient has elapsed in its entirety. As of today, the XXXX loans in question still show on all my credit reports and Navient has made no effort to update me in this process. By their own admission, the process should be completed by now. I also find it hard to believe that Navient is waiting on any other party because again, the first XXXX loans held by XXXX were IMMEDIATELY XXXX without question or incident. \n\nWhy is it that these XXXX loans have not been XXXX even though Navient said they were on XX/XX/XXXX ( a phone rep confirmed to me during a conversation on XX/XX/XXXX that \" as of yesterday '' XX/XX/XXXX the loans had been XXXX and credit reporting would be updated \" at the end of the month '' - this is exactly what the rep said in that conversation )? \n\nFurther, why was my CFPB complaint closed before reaching resolution? I feel that the CFPB did not do due diligence in this complaint because they trusted Navient 's word at face value and as we have now seen their word can not be trusted at face value because every time I speak to them their words turn out to be lies. Please direct me to how I should pursue this complaint to resolution. This has become ridiculous. Thank you for your time.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-03T16:25:57.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"394XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6042938","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2022-10-03T15:59:17.000Z","state":"MS","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Aidvantage is not reporting on my credit open loans, Navient is reporting XXXX loans that <em>have</em> <em>been</em> XXXX even though they <em>have</em> <em>been</em> XXXX. Reporting this to the credit bureaus has done nothing. '' Navient called me and told me that the loans would be immediately XXXX after they received the <em>complaint</em> and that no further action would be needed."]},"sort":[17.569769,"6042938"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21899524","_score":17.205156,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for {$10000.00} ( {$9000.00} financed through Synchrony ). The chair failed within the first month ( error codes 03, 04, and 06 ). I reported the issue promptly and remained under an active extended XXXX warranty. Over the next two and a half years, at least five repair attempts failed. The chair has been completely unusable since shortly after purchase.\n\nDespite my repeated requests, XXXX XXXX denied both a replacement ( new chair ) and a refund after multiple failed repairs. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  manager treated me horribly and yelled at me saying he has the same chair and never had a problem. After I reported him and they heard the recording they attempted to give me {$100.00} credit for the store...\n\nThey also engaged in a pattern of poor handling that included : Extended periods of ghosting with no meaningful response.\n\nShifting responsibility between XXXX XXXX and XXXX without ever providing clear written instructions on the warranty process.\n\nFailing to provide technician reports despite multiple requests.\n\nOffering a replacement only after more than nine months, which I rejected due to lost trust. Their replacement offer was AN OPEN BOX item, which we did not buy a $ XXXX chair to receive a refurbished one.\n\nProviding Synchrony with a false narrative claiming consistent communication and swift resolution since late XXXX ( see attached Ticket # XXXX document ), while the actual record shows the opposite.\n\nprovided Synchrony with extensive documentation showing the above pattern, including the full email chains and the misleading narrative XXXX XXXX submitted to them. Synchrony nevertheless denied my disputes multiple times, apparently accepting XXXX XXXX claims that they were willing to work with the customer and handling the matter consistently.\n\nUnder the Fair Credit Billing Act, Synchrony had a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation. Accepting the merchants self-serving narrative while ignoring clear evidence of years of mismanagement, ghosting, false statements, and internal disorganization ( including XXXX own admission that he had to restart the case in XXXX ) does not meet that standard. This is a clear FCBA violation.\n\nI have paid for over 2.5 years on a completely unusable chair purchased for medical/therapeutic purposes. XXXX XXXX poor handling, lack of continuity, misleading statements to Synchrony, and refusal to honor warranty obligations after failed repairs, combined with Synchronys failure to properly investigate, have caused significant financial harm and distress. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX breached both the express written warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability by failing to repair or replace the defective XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  after multiple unsuccessful repair attempts, despite timely notice and while the product remained under an active extended XXXX warranty. \nKey Facts Establishing the Warranty Breach Valid and Active Warranties The chair was sold with an original manufacturers warranty plus an extended XXXX warranty that is still active as of XXXX. \nThe warranty covers defects in materials and workmanship and includes remedies of repair, replacement, or refund when repairs fail.\n\nTimely Notice of Defect The chair failed completely within the first month of use ( error codes 03, 04, and 06 ).\n\nThe defect was reported to XXXX XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX well within the warranty period and well before any argument of time has passed could apply.\n\nMultiple Failed Repair Attempts ( Reasonable Number Exceeded ) At least five technicians were sent over more than two years.\n\nEvery repair attempt failed. The chair has remained completely unusable since shortly after purchase.\n\nUnder the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the terms of the warranty, after a reasonable number of unsuccessful repair attempts, the consumer is entitled to a replacement ( new unit ) or a refund.\n\nImproper Denial of Warranty Remedies : I repeatedly requested a full replacement ( new chair ). XXXX XXXX and XXXX denied it. \nAfter multiple failed repairs, I requested a full refund. Both were denied.\n\nA replacement was eventually offered only after more than nine months and only as a used/open-box unit which I properly rejected.\n\nThe later excuse that time has passed for a replacement is invalid : notice was timely, the warranty is still active, and the delay was caused by XXXX XXXX own failed repairs and poor handling.\n\nBad Faith Performance of Warranty Obligations ( Evidence of Mismanagement ) XXXX XXXX repeatedly told Synchrony Bank they were willing to work with the customer and maintaining consistent communication.\n\nIn reality, they engaged in extended ghosting, provided inconsistent information about who was responsible for warranty logistics ( XXXX XXXX vs. XXXX ), failed to supply technician reports, and sent parts without a proper diagnosis. \n\nMost tellingly, in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( the new representative ) wrote that XXXX is no longer with the company and that he had to catch myself up on the situation by going through all the emails and correspondence with her. He even asked me for a brief run down of the issues.\n\nThis proves systemic lack of continuity and failure to properly administer and perform warranty obligations over a period of years. \n\nBecause XXXX XXXX stopped responding meaningfully, I was forced to contact XXXX directly in XXXX on my own initiative. XXXX had no meaningful record of engagement until that point, directly contradicting XXXX XXXX claims to Synchrony that XXXX had been promptly and continuously involved since late XXXX. \n\nBecause the chair was defective and the warranty was breached, and because XXXX XXXX engaged in deceptive practices while handling the warranty claim, the charges financed through Synchrony are subject to dispute under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Synchronys repeated denials, while accepting XXXX XXXX false narrative of consistent handling, constitute a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.\n\nfor the record, I attach the documentation I finally was able to get from synchrony bank after 2+ years of them telling me they are not allowed to give it to me. After insisting and letting them know I was filling this complaint, they provided it.\n\nOn this documentation, they show \" they coudlnt get in contact with me '' which it was the technitian calling with a number that came through spam and he never sent emails or texts only after we reached out to XXXX XXXX and they had them sending us a message. They are lying about the events on this as well. \n\nit is very important to note that XXXX claims not knowign about our situation only after i reported them in XXXX but XXXX XXXX  claims says they were always aware, which is a big incnsistency and my warranty is damaged because of this.\n\nSynchrony also received a pdf i mailed to their address which was 41 pages. I have requested this documentation and they have refused to provide me with a copy of it.\n\nI have strong reason to believe that Synchrony did not conduct a proper or thorough investigation of my dispute and did not actually review the extensive documentation and evidence I submitted over multiple dispute filings.\n\nThe core of my dispute is a clear breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the written/extended warranties on the XXXX XXXX XXXX. I provided Synchrony with detailed evidence including : Timely notice of the defect ( within the first month ) Multiple failed repair attempts by at least five technicians over more than two years The chair remaining completely unusable Repeated improper denials of replacement and refund XXXX XXXX misleading statements to Synchrony claiming they were willing to work with the customer while the actual email record shows extended ghosting and poor handling XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX email in which he admitted XXXX is no longer with the company and that he had to restart the case by reading old emails clear evidence of systemic failure to properly manage the warranty claim Despite submitting this documentation, Synchrony continued to deny my disputes while apparently accepting XXXX XXXX self-serving narrative without meaningful review.\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB : Require Synchrony Bank to specifically confirm which documents and evidence they reviewed in my case.\n\nRequire Synchrony to directly address the warranty breach and the evidence showing XXXX XXXX provided false or misleading information to Synchrony. \nObtain and review the full record of what Synchrony received from me versus what they actually considered.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-05T17:51:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"98271","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21899524","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-05-05T17:08:11.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>have</em> requested this documentation and they <em>have</em> refused to provide me with a copy of it.\n\nI <em>have</em> strong reason to believe that Synchrony did not conduct a proper or thorough investigation of my <em>dispute</em> and did not actually review the extensive documentation and evidence I submitted over <em>multiple</em> <em>dispute</em> filings.\n\nThe core of my <em>dispute</em> is a clear breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the written/extended warranties on the XXXX XXXX XXXX."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[17.205156,"21899524"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20355036","_score":16.830475,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Credit Card Dispute Denied Services Not Rendered / Contractor Abandonment Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding Bank of Americas handling of a credit card dispute involving a contractor transaction for services not rendered. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I paid {$6200.00} to contractor XXXX XXXX using my Bank of America credit card for shed construction services. The total contract amount was {$12000.00}. \n\nThe contractor began work but only visited the site approximately four times and performed minimal work, consisting of installing XXXX posts and partial framing. The project was left incomplete, with no roof, no siding, and no functional structure. \n\nAfter these limited visits, the contractor abandoned the project entirely. I made multiple attempts to contact him. When he responded, it was delayed and he claimed to be busy and unable to continue the work. \n\nTo verify whether he was still active, my neigbor contacted him separately regarding another project at a nearby property. He responded immediately, visited the property, provided a quote, and stated he was ready to begin work the next day. Despite this, he refused to return and complete the project for which he had already been paid. \n\nThis demonstrates that the contractor intentionally failed to complete my project while continuing to accept new work. \n\nI filed a dispute with Bank of America for services not rendered and contractor abandonment. I provided supporting documentation including the contract, photos of unfinished work, and communication records. \n\nHowever, my dispute was denied. \n\nBank of America failed to properly evaluate this case as one involving failure to render services and misrepresentation, and instead appears to have treated it as a general service dissatisfaction issue. \n\nThis is not a matter of dissatisfaction. The contractor failed to complete the agreed-upon work and abandoned the project after receiving payment. \n\nI am requesting that Bank of America : Reopen and properly investigate my dispute Evaluate the claim under services not rendered and contractor abandonment Reverse the charge of {$6200.00} Provide a detailed explanation of the denial This situation has caused financial harm, and I am seeking a fair resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-17T23:42:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"22556","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20355036","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-03-17T23:26:46.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Credit Card <em>Dispute</em> Denied Services Not Rendered / Contractor Abandonment <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am filing this <em>complaint</em> regarding Bank of Americas handling of a credit card <em>dispute</em> involving a contractor transaction for services not rendered. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I paid {$6200.00} to contractor XXXX XXXX using my Bank of America credit card for shed construction services. The total contract amount was {$12000.00}."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[16.830475,"20355036"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15710357","_score":16.81731,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative : I am filing this complaint because XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion are reporting false and contradictory derogatory information on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) personal loan. \n\nAccount details : Creditor : XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/year> Terms : XXXX  months Monthly Payment : {$140.00} Balance : {$4100.00} Status : Current / Active Issues : False derogatory reporting The account is marked as Negative even though it is open, current, and being XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nInaccurate late payments Multiple XXXX late notations have been added in XXXX, despite the account showing XXXX. \n\nConflicting activity dates XXXX XXXX and TransUnion show different last activity dates. \n\nContradictions in reporting The loan can not be simultaneously Current and Negative. \n\nViolations of Federal Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Reports must assure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Prohibits obsolete or false derogatory data. \n\nXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Bureaus must establish reasonable procedures for accuracy. \n\nXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) No proof of delinquency has been provided. \n\nXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Requires reinvestigation of disputed items within XXXX  days. \n\nXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Prohibits furnishers from knowingly reporting false data. \n\nFDCPA : XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Prohibits false or misleading credit information. \n\nXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Prohibits unfair credit practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-04T13:00:28.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"601XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15710357","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-04T10:18:12.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> because XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion are reporting false and contradictory derogatory information on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) personal loan."]},"sort":[16.81731,"15710357"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16869484","_score":16.667583,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"What is the problem? \n\nI am filing a new complaint against LexisNexis for providing demonstrably false and contradictory information regarding the status of my security freeze, which has directly caused my wrongful denials from multiple banks. \n\nIn their official response to my previous CFPB complaint ( # XXXX ), dated XX/XX/XXXX, LexisNexis states XXXX \" on XX/XX/XXXX, LexisNexis placed a security freeze on the consumers file. '' This statement is false and deceptive. \n\nI have confirmation from multiple phone calls with LexisNexis representatives throughout XXXX that my security freeze was already active and has been in place since XX/XX/XXXX. The bank denials from XXXX and XXXX XXXX occurred in late XX/XX/XXXX, before the date LexisNexis now claims they placed the freeze. \n\nThis creates an impossible situation : If the freeze was only placed on XX/XX/XXXX, then LexisNexis is admitting my file was unprotected when the banks pulled my report and denied me. This means they furnished a report that contained fraudulent or inaccurate data, leading to an unfair denial. \n\nIf the freeze was active since XX/XX/XXXX ( as I was repeatedly told ), then LexisNexis is now falsifying records by claiming it was just placed. This also means they may have illegally furnished a report from a frozen file. \n\nEither scenario is a severe violation of the FCRA 's requirement for accuracy and reasonable procedures. LexisNexis can not keep changing the fundamental facts of my consumer file to suit their narrative. This \" moving target '' approach has made it impossible for me to clear my name or hold anyone accountable, as the central factthe freeze datekeeps changing. \n\nIN Second : What is the problem? \n\nI am filing my third complaint against LexisNexis for providing demonstrably false and contradictory information, creating an impossible situation that has directly caused my wrongful denials from multiple banks. \n\nLexisNexis is intentionally going back and forth with me to avoid resolving the core issue. I have filed two prior CFPB complaints on this matter, neither of which were resolved. \n\nIn the first complaint, LexisNexis ignored my dispute and simply stated they sent me a consumer reportsomething I never requested. \n\nIn the second complaint ( CFPB Case # XXXX ), I explicitly stated I was advised by their representatives that my file had a security freeze since XX/XX/XXXX. In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they deceptively stated they \" placed a security freeze on the consumers file '' on that date, as if it was a new action I requested. I never requested a freeze ; I was seeking an explanation for the denials. \n\nThis contradiction forced me to call LexisNexis again. The call transcript with XXXX XXXX ( ID : XXXX ) on XXXX, XXXX XXXX, reveals the truth they have been hiding : There has been no active security freeze since XX/XX/XXXX, when one was added and removed on the same day. \n\nThere is, and has been, an Identity Theft Alert on my file since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe prior representative gave me completely false information by claiming I had a freeze since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe core issue is now clear : Banks are denying my applications because of this Identity Theft Alert. Instead of following the alert 's purposewhich is to trigger enhanced verificationtheir automated systems treat it as a reason for automatic denial. LexisNexis 's failure to maintain accurate internal records and provide consistent, truthful information to both me and the CFPB has prevented me from proving this and resolving the problem for months.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T20:05:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78752","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16869484","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2025-10-28T18:28:27.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The call transcript with XXXX XXXX ( ID : XXXX ) on XXXX, XXXX XXXX, reveals the truth they <em>have</em> <em>been</em> hiding : There has <em>been</em> no <em>active</em> security freeze since XX/XX/XXXX, when one was added and removed on the same day. \n\nThere is, and has <em>been</em>, an Identity Theft Alert on my file since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe prior representative gave me completely false information by claiming I had a freeze since XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[16.667583,"16869484"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4108882","_score":16.505888,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"All three Credit Reporting Agencies and the named Creditor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), are each refusing to coordinate the deletion of a derogatory credit item from my personal Credit Report that was erroneously incurred while on XXXX XXXX service. XXXX states that the decision rests with the CRAs. Each CRA claims that the XXXX must stop reporting the item. I have filed multiple disputes with each CRA and directly contacted the XXXX multiple times as well. The body of the complaint 's narrative below describes the specifics. All relevant supporting documentation ( which has been submitted to all CRAs and the XXXX XXXX is attached. I have attempted to remedy this situation myself via direct communication with all named parties and through the hiring of legal representation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nI am formally disputing and requesting DELETION of the negative item being reported against my credit history by MILITARY STAR, under account number listed in attached dispute letter. As evidenced by the enclosed Zero Balance Letter XXXX enclosure 1 ), this account was paid in full on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, but is reported as having been in collections since XXXX 2017a full six months after the account was closed.MILITARY STAR Account was erroneously sent into collections after the account had been paid in full six months prior. \n\nPrior to transferring service components, I established an automatic monthly allotment to ensure timely payment against the open account. However, I later discovered that the active duty payroll system did not automatically carry over the allotment from my reserve payroll account. Upon learning this, I contacted MILITARY STAR  to pay the account in full. I then learned that the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX automatically issued a single payment of {$490.00} to the creditor via direct recoupment of my paycheck once the delay between the active duty and reserve payroll management systems had been reconciled. See my XX/XX/XXXX Leave and Earnings Statement ( LES ) ( enclosure 2 ). \n\nAdditionally, XXXX XXXX is in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) because I was not provided advance notice about any pending material modifications to my credit report/history. I did not receive any official correspondence from the creditor upon transferring to the active duty component. Per the copies of the official active duty orders ( enclosures 6a-6d ), I was enrolled in an intense military training program that required several short-notice relocationsduring an approximate 24 month timeframewhen XXXX XXXX sent the referenced account into collections. \n\nFinally, I have directly sought resolution on multiple occasions with MILITARY STAR via assistance from the credit repair service, XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX demanded validation and removal of the negative credit item by utilizing its Notarized Intervention Process ( enclosure 4 ). More than 60 days have elapsed, and XXXX XXXX, with the exception of furnishing a Zero Balance LetteXXXX, has otherwise failed to provide an equitable response despite presentation of evidence supporting the mitigating circumstances associated with my case. \n\nFrequent moves due to a demanding active duty military training program, lack of communication from the creditor and technical errors with the Air Forces payroll management systems ultimately resulted in a situation beyond my control. By the time I learned what had happened, it was too late. The negative item was already being reported against accounts. Given this information, and the provided documentation, I request that the CRAs delete being reported by XXXX XXXX from my credit history. \n\nXXXX ) Exchange Program/XXXX XXXX Zero Balance Letter 2 ) Leave and Earning Statement XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 3 ) Orders : a Reserve to Active Duty Notice b. Home of Record ( HOR ) to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXl XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice of Termination of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Notarized Intervention Letter XXXX ) Email Correspondence with XXXX XXXX ) Dispute Letters a Experian XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-01T20:39:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"64093","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4108882","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-02-01T20:39:27.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>have</em> filed <em>multiple</em> <em>disputes</em> with each CRA and directly contacted the XXXX <em>multiple</em> times as well. The body of the <em>complaint</em> 's <em>narrative</em> below describes the specifics. All relevant supporting documentation ( which has <em>been</em> submitted to all CRAs and the XXXX XXXX is attached. I <em>have</em> attempted to remedy this situation myself via direct communication with all named parties and through the hiring of legal representation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX )."]},"sort":[16.505888,"4108882"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20105395","_score":15.375522,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Against : Citizens Bank Product : Mortgage Issue : Incorrect / unfair credit reporting related to escrow adjustment Complaint Narrative I am submitting this complaint regarding the reporting of a XXXX late payment on my mortgage account for XX/XX/year>. \n\nI have maintained a perfect payment history on my mortgage with Citizens Bank and have always made my payments through automatic payment. In XX/XX/year>, my escrow payment amount was increased. Unfortunately, I did not receive the escrow adjustment notice, and my automatic payment continued to draft the previous payment amount. \n\nAs a result, my payment for that month was short by {$120.00} due solely to the escrow adjustment. At no point did I intentionally miss a payment. My mortgage payment was still made through my automatic payment setup as it had been every month. \n\nOnce the shortage was identified, the matter was corrected. Citizens Bank acknowledged the circumstances by waiving the associated late fee. However, despite this acknowledgement and my otherwise flawless payment history, the bank has continued to report the XX/XX/year> payment as a XXXX late to the credit bureaus. \n\nI have attempted multiple times to resolve this matter directly with Citizens Bank. I submitted disputes to the credit bureaus and also requested a goodwill adjustment directly from the bank. Unfortunately, my request was denied with the explanation that they are required to report payment history accurately. \n\nWhile I understand the importance of accurate reporting, this situation resulted from an escrow adjustment that I did not receive notice of, while my automatic payment remained active and continued to make payments. The shortage was only {$120.00} and did not reflect a missed payment or a pattern of delinquency. \n\nThis single late payment mark has had a significant and disproportionate negative impact on my credit, despite my otherwise perfect payment history on this mortgage. \n\nGiven the circumstances automatic payments in place, a small escrow adjustment shortage, no prior late payments, and the banks decision to waive the late fee I respectfully request that Citizens Bank review this matter and remove the XX/XX/year> XXXX late payment reporting as a one-time goodwill adjustment. \n\nI value my relationship with Citizens Bank and hope this matter can be resolved fairly.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-09T20:44:53.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"22102","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20105395","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2026-03-09T20:18:18.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> Against : Citizens Bank Product : Mortgage Issue : Incorrect / unfair credit reporting related to escrow adjustment <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> regarding the reporting of a XXXX late payment on my mortgage account for XX/XX/year>. \n\nI <em>have</em> maintained a perfect payment history on my mortgage with Citizens Bank and <em>have</em> always made my payments through automatic payment. In XX/XX/year>, my escrow payment amount was increased."]},"sort":[15.375522,"20105395"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16879506","_score":15.3271,"_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":["I <em>have</em> sent several <em>disputes</em> that never get resolved due to the inaction of Transunion and Experian. XXXX has <em>been</em> the only entity that has completed all my <em>disputes</em> 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 <em>Complaint</em> : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion Company 2 : Experian 2."]},"sort":[15.3271,"16879506"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16869742","_score":15.3271,"_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":["I <em>have</em> sent several <em>disputes</em> that never get resolved due to the inaction of Transunion and Experian. XXXX has <em>been</em> the only entity that has completed all my <em>disputes</em> 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 <em>Complaint</em> : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion Company 2 : Experian 2."]},"sort":[15.3271,"16869742"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17650310","_score":15.281656,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is my second CFPB complaint against TransUnion regarding continued inaccurate and unverified reporting following multiple written disputes since XXXX. TransUnion inaccurately characterized my dispute as a request to block fraudulent information, when I did not file any fraud or identity theft claim ; I submitted formal verification disputes requesting documentary proof of account accuracy. TransUnion admits they relied solely on contacting the creditors and recording the furnishers electronic responses rather than conducting a lawful reinvestigation using original source documentation, which violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ). TransUnion failed to provide or disclose any method of verification as required by 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) no copies of contracts, billing statements, payment histories, balance calculations, charge-off records, or certified bankruptcy court documents were reviewed or supplied. They also produced no evidence that my full dispute narrative or supporting documentation was forwarded to furnishers, violating 611 ( a ) ( 2 ). Although several accounts were deleted ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) , demonstrating that inaccurate data had been previously reported in violation of 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ), TransUnion still claims the U.S. Bankruptcy Court XXXX XXXX record was verified as reported without producing any court-certified proof, and the XXXX  XXXX tradeline remains in active dispute without lawful verification. Reliance on vendor data and automated ACDV responses rather than original record custodians fails under Metro 2 verification standards, which require competent documentary evidence before continued reporting. Because remaining accounts have not been verified through statutorily compliant reinvestigation, continued reporting constitutes violations of FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), 611 ( a ) ( 2 ), and 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), and under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) any item that can not be lawfully verified must be permanently deleted and barred from reinsertion absent advance production of full documentary verification.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-02T21:28:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77373","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17650310","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-02T21:25:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is my second CFPB <em>complaint</em> against TransUnion regarding continued inaccurate and unverified reporting following <em>multiple</em> written <em>disputes</em> since XXXX. TransUnion inaccurately characterized my <em>dispute</em> as a request to block fraudulent information, when I did not file any fraud or identity theft claim ; I submitted formal verification <em>disputes</em> requesting documentary proof of account accuracy."]},"sort":[15.281656,"17650310"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4108881","_score":14.156309,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"All three XXXX XXXX XXXX and the named Creditor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), are each refusing to coordinate the deletion of a derogatory credit item from my personal Credit Report that was erroneously incurred while on XXXX XXXX  service. XXXX states that the decision rests with the CRAs. Each CRA claims that the Creditor must stop reporting the item. I have filed multiple disputes with each CRA and directly contacted the Creditor multiple times as well. The body of the complaint 's narrative below describes the specifics. All relevant supporting documentation ( which has been submitted to all CRAs and the Creditor XXXX is attached. I have attempted to remedy this situation myself via direct communication with all named parties and through the hiring of legal representation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nI am formally disputing and requesting DELETION of the negative item being reported against my credit history by XXXX XXXX under account number listed in attached dispute letter. As evidenced by the enclosed XXXX  Balance Letter ( enclosure 1 ), this account was paid in full on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, but is reported as having been in collections since XXXX XXXXa full six months after the account was closed.XXXX XXXX Account was erroneously sent into collections after the account had been paid in full six months prior. \n\nPrior to transferring service components, I established an automatic monthly allotment to ensure timely payment against the open account. However, I later discovered that the XXXX XXXX payroll system did not automatically carry over the allotment from my reserve payroll account. Upon learning this, I contacted XXXX XXXX to pay the account in full. I then learned that the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX automatically issued a single payment of {$490.00} to the creditor via direct recoupment of my paycheck once the delay between the XXXX XXXX and reserve payroll management systems had been reconciled. See my XX/XX/XXXX Leave and Earnings Statement ( LES ) ( enclosure 2 ). \n\nAdditionally, XXXX XXXX XXXXs in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) because I was not provided advance notice about any pending material modifications to my credit report/history. I did not receive any official correspondence from the creditor upon transferring to the XXXX XXXX component. Per the copies of the official XXXX XXXX orders ( enclosures 6a-6d ), I was enrolled in an intense military training program that required several short-notice relocationsduring an approximate 24 month timeframewhen XXXX XXXX  sent the referenced account into collections. \n\nFinally, I have directly sought resolution on multiple occasions with XXXX XXXX via assistance from the credit repair service, XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX demanded validation and removal of the negative credit item by utilizing its Notarized Intervention Process ( enclosure XXXX ). More than 60 days have elapsed, and XXXX XXXX, with the exception of furnishing a XXXX Balance Letter, has otherwise failed to provide an equitable response despite presentation of evidence supporting the mitigating circumstances associated with my case. \n\nFrequent moves due to a demanding active duty military training program, lack of communication from the creditor and technical errors with the XXXX XXXX payroll management systems ultimately resulted in a situation beyond my control. By the time I learned what had happened, it was too late. The negative item was already being reported against accounts. Given this information, and the provided documentation, I request that the CRAs delete being reported by XXXX XXXX from my credit history. \n\nXXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Balance Letter XXXX ) Leave and Earning Statement ( XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ) Orders : a Reserve to Active Duty Notice b. Home of Record ( HOR ) to XXXX Training School XXXX XXXX XXXX  c. XXXX  to XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice of Termination of Pilot Training XXXX ) XXXX Law Notarized Intervention Letter XXXX ) Email Correspondence with XXXX XXXX ) Dispute Letters a XXXX  XXXX Transunion XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-01T20:39:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"64093","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4108881","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-02-01T20:39:27.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>have</em> filed <em>multiple</em> <em>disputes</em> with each CRA and directly contacted the Creditor <em>multiple</em> times as well. The body of the <em>complaint</em> 's <em>narrative</em> below describes the specifics. All relevant supporting documentation ( which has <em>been</em> submitted to all CRAs and the Creditor XXXX is attached. I <em>have</em> attempted to remedy this situation myself via direct communication with all named parties and through the hiring of legal representation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX )."]},"sort":[14.156309,"4108881"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18253417","_score":14.103689,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Reopen or Correct Record False Mutual Resolution by Merchant XXXX XXXX ( Zinch ) Complaint ID XXXX addition of deletion/mutilation of complaint records and obstruction of justice by XXXX and NYAG. \n\nThis an update / follow-up on CFPB complaint no. XXXX, with addition of complaint against NYDFS and NYAG for complaint record destruction/mutilation and obstruction of Justice. Please reopen or correct my XX/XX/XXXX complaint ( ID XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX the company stated we reached a mutual resolution on XX/XX/XXXX. CFPB then marked the complaint Closed with explanation. That statement is false. \nKey facts : XX/XX/XXXX : Zinchs counsel froze my business bank account and seized {$2900.00}. \nXX/XX/XXXX : My business shut down. There was no agreement and no consent from me. \nXX/XX/XXXX : The company told CFPB the matter was resolved ; the portal shows Closed with explanation. \nI could not rebut immediately due to total financial collapse and a documented XXXX diagnosis following the levy. \nThe dispute continued after XX/XX/XXXX in multiple forums : NYAG referral history, DFPIDFS referral, DFS FOIL and Article 78 proceedings, and a live California appeal. This is not consistent with resolved. \n\nOversight status During parallel FOIL ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and Article XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) proceedings, It was discovered that DFS removed/omitted the narrative content of the DFPI-forwarded complaint from its file. \nVia a XX/XX/XXXX FOIL response, the Office of the Inspector General reported that it forwarded my complaint ( XX/XX/XXXX ) alleging DFS deletion/mutilation of complaint records to XXXX DFS offices and received no responses. This concerns record retention and handling tied to this same matter. \nAfter I filed a Reply ( XX/XX/XXXX ) in the Article 78 matter that documented and cited these record deletions, that Reply went missing from the chambers file of a New York Supreme Court judge, ONLY TO REEMERGE AS A NON CHRONOLOGICAL MISCELLANEOUS FILING, after a well timed Social Media and local campaign.\n\nPLEASE NOTE : CFPB HAS NOT BEEN APPROACHED AS A SUBSTITUTE OF ANY COURT PROCEEDING. It has been approached due to a complete documented failure of state agencies ( DFPI, DFS ) to contain exploitation of the Small Business Industries within their respective states, or even to document the same ( DFS ), despite of active XXXX and agreements with the CFPB, at the time incidents occurred as well as when complaints were initiated. \n\nTHE COMPLAINANT UNDERSTANDS AND WILL UNDERTAKE ALL APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTIONS. Even in the light of obstruction of justice by New York State Attorney General ( NYAG ) and New York State Department Of Financial Services ( NYDFS ) by coordination to DELETE AND ALTER COMPLAINT RECORDS, complainant is determined to proceed as required legally without any expectation or dependence from any external source, including the CFPB. Complaints sole purpose is to inform and encourage CFPB to act against the breaches on consumer protection in a matter within its jurisdiction. \nRequested action : Given the multi-agency non-responsiveness and record-integrity concerns that have impeded state-level redress, please reopen or annotate the complaint and refer the companys submission to CFPB Supervision/Enforcement and, as appropriate, Federal Agency review.\n\nAttachments Exhibit 1 : FOIL documents showing New York State OIGs five-office forwarding with no responses. \nExhibit 2 : Full DFPI-801 Complaint Form, released via California Public Records Act ( CPRA ) on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ). \nExhibit 3 : Truncated/mutilated version of complaint as produced by DFS, on XX/XX/XXXX FOIL appeal ( FOIL XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). Second Page of DFPI-801 Complaint form- with the complaint narrative and legal violation details- removed from the case record.\n\nExhibit 4 : New York State Attorney General ( NYAG ) s XX/XX/XXXX letter initially referring this complaint to CFPB ( File No. XXXX ) DFPI-DFS referral trail and missing complaint.\n\nExhibit 5 : CFPB portal screenshots showing my submission, the companys - false - mutual resolution language, and Closed with explanation status. \nExhibit XXXX : Bank levy proof dated XX/XX/XXXX Contrary to Mutual resolution and XXXX reaching out. \nExhibit 7 : Opposition to DFS/NYAGs Motion to dismiss a related Article 78 petition ( paper filed ) in New York State Supreme Court , XXXX XXXX . It is referenced only for contextual basis. State laws mentioned within, are inapplicable at Federal level. Observe well established 18 U.S.C. 1519 standards. \n\n\nThank you. \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-20T13:46:40.000Z","issue":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"11801","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18253417","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Prisma Capital LLC","date_received":"2025-11-09T06:15:11.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>dispute</em> continued after XX/XX/XXXX in <em>multiple</em> forums : NYAG referral history, DFPIDFS referral, DFS FOIL and Article 78 proceedings, and a live California appeal. This is not consistent with resolved. \n\nOversight status During parallel FOIL ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and Article XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) proceedings, It was discovered that DFS removed/omitted the <em>narrative</em> content of the DFPI-forwarded <em>complaint</em> from its file."]},"sort":[14.103689,"18253417"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15582402","_score":14.04077,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Continued Billing Error Violations, Unauthorized Collection, Credit Damage, and Illegal Account Closure by Bank of America Title : Retaliatory and Unlawful Involuntary Closure of Credit Card Account by Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX my ongoing and legitimate billing dispute under federal law, Bank of America has engaged in retaliatory conduct by unilaterally closing my credit card account. This closure, justified by a claimed current or past delinquency, is factually incorrect and legally unjustifiable given that the disputed balance has been paid and remains under formal dispute resolution. The timing and nature of this account closure constitute a violation of my consumer rights and represent an unlawful retaliation for exercising my dispute rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), Truth in Lending Act, and other consumer protection statutes.\n\nNarrative : Since filing my original complaint, Bank of America has : Sent multiple misleading collection letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, including one from XXXX XXXX demanding payment while the account was actively disputed. \n\n\nReported the account negatively to credit bureaus, causing a XXXX drop in my credit score despite the account being in active billing dispute status. \n\n\nFailed to validate the alleged debt in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g, and Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ).\n\nContinued billing and collection efforts without providing substantiation, violating federal law. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, a Bank of America employee falsely claimed that my XX/XX/XXXX payment never went through, misleading me about my account status despite their own records proving otherwise. \n\n\nSent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, notifying me of the involuntary closure of my credit card account citing current or past delinquency, a decision that is retaliatory and unfounded given the active disputes and payments made.\n\nLegal Violations : Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) : Collection activity, interest charges, and account closure during an active billing dispute.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g, 1692e ) : Collection of a disputed debt without validation and deceptive misrepresentation regarding payment history and account status.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : Reporting inaccurate or disputed information to credit bureaus, resulting in credit damage.\n\nUnfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAP ) : Attempted collection and account closure in retaliation for exercising dispute rights.\n\nRequested Relief : Immediate cessation of all collection attempts on the disputed {$1000.00} balance and related fees.\n\nRemoval and correction of all negative entries on my credit reports related to this account.\n\nFull investigation and production of all account documentation, including detailed payment history and internal transaction notes for XX/XX/XXXX, and subsequent disputed transactions. \n\n\nReinstatement of my credit card account or full explanation supported by documentation justifying the closure. \n\n\nEnforcement action and statutory damages for violations under TILA, FDCPA, and FCRA. \n\n\nRestitution for financial harm, including losses from a XXXX credit score drop, higher borrowing costs, denied financing opportunities, improper fees, and emotional distress.\n\nFinancial Remedies : Credit Score Damage : Estimated {$6600.00} in increased borrowing costs and lost opportunities due to a XXXX credit drop. \n\n\nImproper Fees and Interest : {$83.00} in returned payment and late fees charged unlawfully during dispute. \n\n\nStatutory Damages : Up to {$8000.00} for violations of TILA, FDCPA, and FCRA ( including multiple reporting violations ). \n\n\nEmotional Distress and Other Losses : Estimated {$2000.00} for stress, time, and effort resolving the issue. \n\n\nTotal Estimated Financial Harm : Approximately {$16000.00}. \n\nAttachments : Copies of misleading collection letters from Bank of America. \n\n\nDocumentation of credit report showing XXXX drop. \n\n\nDispute letters sent to Bank of America ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\n\nXXXX XXXX  statements confirming payments and returned duplicate debits. \n\n\nBank of America correspondence regarding destroyed payment instrument and account closure.\n\nLetter from BOA stating they have closed my account Dispute letters to transunion, equifax, and experian Dispute Certified mail receipts. \n\nBOA flagging my account and dropping score XXXX points on Experian This complaint is submitted in good faith and constitutes a formal demand for compliance with all applicable consumer protection laws. \nRespectfully, XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-308","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-28T19:54:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90249","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15582402","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-08-28T19:20:53.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Narrative</em> : Since filing my original <em>complaint</em>, Bank of America has : Sent <em>multiple</em> misleading collection letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, including one from XXXX XXXX demanding payment while the account was <em>actively</em> <em>disputed</em>. \n\n\nReported the account negatively to credit bureaus, causing a XXXX drop in my credit score despite the account being in <em>active</em> billing <em>dispute</em> status."],"sub_issue":["Problem with personal statement of <em>dispute</em>"]},"sort":[14.04077,"15582402"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21391213","_score":13.989798,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Type : Student Loan Issue : Incorrect balance / status / reporting Complaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint regarding a material discrepancy in the status and reporting of my federal student loans. \n\nI filed XXXX XXXX to XXXX  ( BDR ) applications beginning around XXXX and again prior to 2025 for loans associated with University XXXX XXXX. \n\nIn or around Summer 2024, multiple indicators reflected that my loans had been XXXX under XXXX, including : Credit reports showing a {$0.00} balance and forgiven status Verbal confirmation from a Federal Student Aid ( FSA ) representative Lack of any billing, repayment schedule, or servicing activity consistent with an active loan obligation However, beginning in XXXX and continuing into XXXX : My loans were reclassified as in repayment with a balance of approximately {$190000.00} My XXXX XXXX application history is no longer visible in the FSA system I received no written notice of any reversal or reinstatement of the debt No documentation has been provided explaining the change in status Additionally, in XX/XX/XXXX, I was contacted by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) indicating possible servicing or collection involvement. XXXX has not provided documentation validating the debt, demonstrating authority to service the loans, or explaining how a previously XXXX or inactive obligation has been reinstated. \n\nDespite the loans being reported as in repayment, I have : Received no billing statements Received no repayment schedule Not entered into any repayment agreement No payment currently due This creates a material inconsistency between how the loans are being reported and the absence of any enforceable servicing activity. \n\nDual-Path Issue ( Core Dispute ) : This matter presents XXXX mutually exclusive possibilities : If the loans were XXXX under XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX, then : The current reporting is inaccurate The loans must be restored to a {$0.00} balance with a XXXX status If the loans were not XXXX, then : The current balance, status, and servicing must be fully validated Complete documentation must be provided establishing : The validity of the debt Chain of custody and current ownership Authority of any servicer or third party Explanation for prior {$0.00} credit reporting Explanation for absence of billing and repayment activity At present, neither scenario has been properly documented, leaving the debt unsupported and inconsistently reported. \n\nImpact : This discrepancy has caused significant financial harm, including : A drop in my credit score from the XXXX to the low XXXX Distortion of my debt-to-income ratio Inability to qualify for a mortgage In the absence of clear documentation supporting the current reported balance and status, this matter reflects a failure of data integrity, record preservation, and servicing coordination. The debt, as currently reported, is not supported by consistent or verifiable records and must be corrected. \n\nI request a prompt and substantive response.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-20T04:37:42.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"604XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21391213","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2026-04-20T04:08:01.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> Type : Student Loan Issue : Incorrect balance / status / reporting <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> regarding a material discrepancy in the status and reporting of my federal student loans. \n\nI filed XXXX XXXX to XXXX  ( BDR ) applications beginning around XXXX and again prior to 2025 for loans associated with University XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[13.989798,"21391213"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13382121","_score":13.348158,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This is a separate issue from my prior complaint filed in XXXX, which was categorized as a card transaction dispute. Since then, XXXX has engaged in unauthorized charge attempts, deceptive billing practices, and third-party debt collection activity despite a pending FCC complaint. \n\nComplaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint to report XXXX XXXX for deceptive billing practices, unauthorized charges, misrepresentation by customer service and executive representatives, and aggressive third-party collection activity despite a pending FCC complaint. These actions have resulted in financial harm, reputational damage, and emotional distress. \n\nBackground : On XX/XX/year>, I began the process of switching my wireless service from XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reimburses customers for device balances after XXXX days of active service. Before switching, I contacted XXXX multiple times to ask whether I could wait for the XXXX reimbursement cards before paying off my final device balance. \n\nXXXX representatives assured meon multiple callsthat this would not be a problem, and that no charges would be auto-drafted before I had the opportunity to pay manually. I was told I could wait until the XXXX XXXX XXXX cards arrived and pay the balance directly. Relying on that assurance, I ported out my lines. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX {$1600.00} On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX auto-drafted {$1600.00} from my checking account, which included the full remaining balance for three devices. This happened after my account had been closed and without any warning or consent. \n\nCritically, I had no way to prevent this, because I was locked out of my XXXX account the moment my final line disconnected in XXXX. I was unable to access the portal or remove payment methods or cancel XXXX. \n\nThis unauthorized charge overdrafted my bank account by over {$500.00} and caused serious disruption : I had movers scheduled just hours later, and I was left without access to the funds I had set aside to pay them. \n\nFCC Complaint and Refund I immediately filed a formal complaint with the FCC ( Case # XXXX ). In response, I was contacted by a XXXX XXXX XXXX representative ( XXXX ), who acknowledged the charge and issued a full refund, which I received a few days later. During that call, XXXX also assured me that no further charges would be attempted and that XXXX had been removed. I was told this was resolved. \n\nHowever, XXXX refused to provide written confirmation of these statements, citing internal system limitations. I was told I could rely on the recorded call and that the notes had been placed on my account. \n\nSecond Charge Attempt XX/XX/year> On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX attempted to charge the exact same amount $ XXXX. This charge reached my bank and was flagged as fraud, triggering an automatic shutdown of my debit card. \n\nThis occurred despite XXXX claiming they had removed all payment methods from my account on XX/XX/XXXX. If this were true, this second billing attempt should have been impossible. Yet it happened. \n\nThis second incident caused even greater harm : My debit card was permanently disabled. \n\nI was left with no access to funds, now going on over a week Multiple bills, including rent, car payment, insurance, and personal loans, failed, risked default, and were delayed. \n\nNine of my recurring subscriptions were cancelled. \n\nMy 100 % on-time payment record is now at risk of default, and I may incur lasting credit damage. \n\nI will have to spend days manually updating all linked payment accounts after being issued a replacement debit card. \n\nCollection Activity Despite Open Regulatory Complaint While this issue was still active with the FCC, XXXX escalated the balance to third-party collections ( AFNI, XXXX ), contrary to what their XXXX Office had told me. \n\nAFNI began calling my fiance ( the original account holder ) around XX/XX/XXXX, and she verbally told them to stop calling. They then emailed me, under her name, despite : The fact that she told them to stop. \n\nThe fact that I was never listed as the primary account holder. \n\nThe fact that they used our old address, meaning any written validation they send may never reach us. \n\nI replied immediately to AFNI to formally dispute the debt and request validation, citing the open FCC complaint. I also sent them a follow-up with our updated address. No response has been received yet. \n\nXXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX Email Final Denial Without Hearing Me Out On XX/XX/year>, I received an email from XXXX Executive Relations stating that my request for resolution had been denied and that they considered the matter closed. This occurred : Without me ever speaking to the assigned representative Without any live follow-up or phone call Without any acknowledgement of the second charge attempt on XX/XX/XXXX Without a fair chance to present these facts Their letter cited their Customer Agreement to claim that verbal promises made by representatives are not binding, despite the fact that I was encouraged to rely on those promises. XXXX selectively used this clause to avoid accountability while allowing internal billing systems to violate what their own executive promised me. \n\nMy Complaint and Request for Action : Verizons conduct throughout this matter constitutes : Deceptive billing practices Unauthorized access to a financial instrument Failure to honor verbal commitments made by executive staff Collections activity during an unresolved regulatory dispute Financial injury and reputational harm I am prepared to provide all relevant documentation, call transcripts, emails, and banking statements upon request. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance in reviewing this complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-08T01:27:15.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Telecommunications debt","zip_code":"80134","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13382121","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AFNI INC.","date_received":"2025-05-08T01:26:52.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> to report XXXX XXXX for deceptive billing practices, unauthorized charges, misrepresentation by customer service and executive representatives, and aggressive third-party collection activity despite a pending FCC <em>complaint</em>. These actions <em>have</em> resulted in financial harm, reputational damage, and emotional distress."]},"sort":[13.348158,"13382121"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16664666","_score":13.257265,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is filed against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and Equifax Information Services LLC for the ongoing publication of false and manipulated credit data associated with the XXXX account ending XXXX. This complaint is not a duplicate. It is a new complaint supported by newly discovered forensic evidence demonstrating post-settlement data tampering, identity misuse, and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 Credit Reporting Resource Guide ( CRRG ) standards.\n\nFollowing the insurance settlement of my vehicle, XXXX was fully paid and the account was no longer owed. However, Equifax continues to report this account as a charge-off with an active balance of {$3300.00}. The credit data reported by Equifax reflects deliberate, sequential manipulation of key reporting fields that create a false narrative of ongoing delinquency. The XXXX history shows systemic falsification. Specifically, on XX/XX/XXXX Equifax reported Balance : {$3300.00}, Past Due : {$3300.00}, High Credit : {$32000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX Equifax reported Balance : {$3300.00}, Past Due : blank, High Credit : {$3800.00}. The Last Payment Date field was altered across multiple monthsshowing XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and again XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The High Credit field was later changed to Not Reported in XX/XX/XXXX, effectively removing historical data. This creates a pattern of data re-aging and reinsertion of altered values inconsistent with any legitimate loan activity. \n\nThese inconsistencies violate multiple federal statutes and industry reporting standards. XXXX and Equifaxs conduct violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, 1681i ( a ) for failure to reasonably reinvestigate disputed information, and 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) for unlawful re-aging of account data. The manipulation of the Date of Last Payment and High Credit fields constitutes deliberate data alteration designed to extend the derogatory reporting period, contrary to the seven-year limitation under FCRA. Furthermore, under Metro 2 CRRG 6.2.2, furnishers must preserve static values for Date of First Delinquency and High Credit. Changing these fields without verified supporting documentation is prohibited and constitutes a willful furnishing of false data. \n\nHMFs continued furnishing of account information after full insurance payoff is a direct violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits a furnisher from reporting information known or reasonably believed to be inaccurate. The companys ongoing furnishing of new payment-date values and altered balances under my name represents unauthorized use of my consumer identity after account closure. This is equivalent to post-settlement identity misuse. No legitimate account activity occurred after insurance settlement, and no Form 1099-C was ever issued under 26 U.S.C. 6050P to recognize a cancellation of debt. The lack of a 1099-C confirms that the account was not an unpaid debt, and any continued reporting constitutes a false representation of liability. \n\nThe forensic analysis of the XXXX payment history confirms that XXXX systematically re-aged and republished tradeline data after the obligation was extinguished. The simultaneous presence of multiple conflicting XXXX XXXX narrative codes022 ( charge-off ), 067 ( loss write-off ), 132 ( repossession ), 167 ( insurance claim ), and 214 ( repossession completed ) is impossible under standard data protocols. These codes can not coexist legitimately and indicate manual intervention or automated manipulation of account data. \n\nRequested Resolution : Immediate deletion of the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline from Equifax and all associated credit reporting systems. \n\nFormal acknowledgment by XXXX and Equifax that this account was satisfied through insurance settlement and that the consumer has no further liability. \n\nWritten certification under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( ii ) that this tradeline will not be reinserted without written notice to the consumer and supporting documentation verifying accuracy. \n\nA CFPB enforcement review of XXXX XXXX XXXX post-settlement furnishing practices under FCRA 1681s and potential referral for investigation under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( identity misuse ). \n\nConfirmation from Equifax that all inaccurate payment-date, high-credit, and status fields have been purged and that the account has been permanently suppressed. \n\nThis complaint demonstrates willful noncompliance and reckless disregard of the truth as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( XXXX ). The pattern of re-aged data, inconsistent balances, and falsified payment dates establishes clear intent to misrepresent my credit profile and unlawfully extend a derogatory tradeline. I request the CFPBs direct intervention and enforcement action to ensure full deletion, compliance certification, and civil accountability.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-17T11:14:50.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30005","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16664666","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-17T11:14:24.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Confirmation from Equifax that all inaccurate payment-date, high-credit, and status fields <em>have</em> <em>been</em> purged and that the account has <em>been</em> permanently suppressed. \n\nThis <em>complaint</em> demonstrates willful noncompliance and reckless disregard of the truth as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( XXXX )."]},"sort":[13.257265,"16664666"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21441170","_score":13.22993,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"b'here is what i plan to post...should i update the XXXX day part or leave it as i recall it may or may not apply\\n\\nCFPB Complaint  File at consumerfinance.gov/complaint\\nCompany: American Express Product: Credit card Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement  Credit card company isn\\'t resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement\\nComplaint narrative (paste this):\\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX I paid XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via my American Express card ending in XXXX The charge was for a coaching program that included a written guarantee of unlimited support until job placement, documented in both a pre-sale email from the company\\'s sales representative and in the signed Client Services Agreement.\\nThe pre-sale materials sent to me before I signed contained specific written income claims, including XXXX annual income\" and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\" and named \"Personalized Stacking Guidance\" as a contracted deliverable. The company\\'s disclaimer clause in the contract  claiming I did not rely on earnings representations  is directly contradicted by the company\\'s own written pre-sale documents.XXXX XXXX ceased all operations and terminated all services on XXXX XXXX XXXX I was never placed in a job as guaranteed. The company did not offer refunds. When I attempted to access the service in XXXX XXXX, I received a bounce-back email confirming the company\\'s contact address no longer existed (mailer-daemon failure, XXXX XXXX XXXX). This was my discovery date  I had no knowledge the company had dissolved prior to this attempt.\\nI filed a dispute with American Express, Reference Number XXXX The dispute has been closed multiple times on the basis that it was reported more than XXXX days after the statement date. American Express has not reviewed the merits of this case at any point.\\nThe XXXX-day window applies to when a billing error is first discoverable. During the first XXXX days after my XXXX XXXX statement, services were actively being delivered and I had no basis to dispute. The merchant\\'s failure to perform its contractual guarantee only became permanent and undeniable when it dissolved in XXXX XXXX. My discovery of the dissolution occurred XXXX XXXX XXXX. I contacted American Express approximately XXXX  months after discovery  a reasonable timeline for a consumer who was unaware of dispute window requirements.\\nI have documentation supporting all claims: the pre-sale written income promises (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  sent XXXX XXXX XXXX), the salesperson\\'s written guarantee email (XXXX XXXX XXXX), the signed XXXX  contract with guarantee clause, the company\\'s closure notification emails, my failed XXXX XXXX login attempt, the mailer-daemon bounce email confirming dissolution, and my outbound emails attempting to access the service. I also sent a formal written billing inquiry by certified mail to the American Express Billing Inquiries address (XXXX XXXX XXXX) on XXXX XXXX XXXX, Certified Mail tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.\\nAmerican Express has repeatedly closed this dispute under a policy rule without any investigation of documented written misrepresentation, breach of written guarantee, and services permanently not rendered due to merchant dissolution. I am requesting that the CFPB require American Express to conduct a full merits-based review of this case.\\nDispute Reference: XXXX | Phone Case: XXXX | Amount: XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-21T15:27:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"727XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21441170","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-21T15:08:56.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\nI filed a <em>dispute</em> with American Express, Reference Number XXXX The <em>dispute</em> has <em>been</em> closed <em>multiple</em> times on the basis that it was reported more than XXXX days after the statement date. American Express has not reviewed the merits of this case at any point.\\nThe XXXX-day window applies to when a billing error is first discoverable. During the first XXXX days after my XXXX XXXX statement, services were <em>actively</em> being delivered and I had no basis to <em>dispute</em>."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[13.22993,"21441170"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16423816","_score":13.214487,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Escalation Portfolio Recovery Associates ( XXXX ) Continued False Reporting, Failure to Validate, and CFPB Inaction -- - Complaint Narrative : I am filing this new complaint because Portfolio Recovery Associates ( XXXX ) continues to report XXXX alleged XXXX Bank accounts ( ending in XXXX and XXXX ) that are inaccurate, unverified, and unlawfully damaging my credit, despite multiple CFPB complaints and extensive documentation proving they can not validate the debts. \n\nThis is now my fifth complaint regarding these same accounts, which shows an ongoing pattern of noncompliance and disregard for the law. My prior complaint numbers include : # XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ) In their most recent response ( XX/XX/year> ), XXXX once again failed to provide proper debt XXXX under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ) or comply with their duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). \n\nXXXX has only provided internal business records and billing statements not : XXXX. A signed contract or original application proving I opened these accounts. \n\n\nXXXX. A complete chain of title showing legal transfer from XXXX XXXX  to XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Proof of legal authority to collect or report these debts. \n\n\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), once a consumer disputes a debt, collection and credit reporting must cease until proper validation is provided. XXXX violated this law by continuing to report unverified accounts. \n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), furnishers must investigate and correct inaccurate or incomplete information when notified by credit bureaus or the CFPB. PRAs repeated refusal to do so is a clear and willful violation of federal law. \n\nPRAs statement that my dispute was untimely is false. I have filed multiple CFPB complaints and disputes throughout 2025 all while the accounts are actively reporting. Their claim is a deceptive attempt to avoid their legal obligations. \n\n\n-- - CFPB Accountability It is unacceptable that the CFPB continues to mark my complaints as closed while the company remains in violation of federal law. This process is supposed to protect consumers, not shield repeat violators. \n\nIf the CFPB continues to close complaints without requiring deletion or compliance, it defeats the entire purpose of having this agency. Consumers like me deserve enforcement and accountability, not form letters and dismissals. \n\nBecause of XXXX ongoing false reporting and the XXXX lack of enforcement, I will be filing a formal complaint with the Texas Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and pursuing legal action under the FDCPA and FCRA. \n\n\n-- - Requested Resolution I demand the following actions : XXXX. Immediate and permanent deletion of both Portfolio Recovery Associates accounts ( ending in 2459 and 3109 ) from all credit bureaus ( Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion ). \n\n\nXXXX. These accounts must never appear on my credit reports again under any name, trade line, or variation. I am requesting that CFPB ensure no reinsertion of these accounts under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\n3. A formal CFPB investigation into Portfolio Recoverys pattern of deceptive reporting and noncompliance. \n\n\nXXXX. Referral to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and Texas Attorney General for enforcement and penalties against XXXX for repeated violations. \n\n\nXXXX. Written confirmation that XXXX has been instructed to permanently remove these accounts and cease all collection activity. \n\n\n\n\n-- - Summary Portfolio Recovery Associates has repeatedly violated the FDCPA and FCRA through unlawful collection, continued false reporting, and deceptive responses to federal complaints. The CFPBs repeated closure of these complaints without action enables continued harm to consumers. \n\nI expect this matter to be treated as a formal escalation and enforcement request not another routine review. If no corrective action is taken within 30 days, I will proceed with complaints to the Texas Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission, and consumer litigation counsel for damages and injunctive relief.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-07T13:59:45.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77082","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16423816","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","date_received":"2025-10-07T13:42:42.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PRAs statement that my <em>dispute</em> was untimely is false. I <em>have</em> filed <em>multiple</em> CFPB <em>complaints</em> and <em>disputes</em> throughout 2025 all while the accounts are <em>actively</em> reporting. Their claim is a deceptive attempt to avoid their legal obligations. \n\n\n-- - CFPB Accountability It is unacceptable that the CFPB continues to mark my <em>complaints</em> as closed while the company remains in violation of federal law. This process is supposed to protect consumers, not shield repeat violators."]},"sort":[13.214487,"16423816"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21388179","_score":13.058858,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This dispute is submitted in response to Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/year> reply to CFPB case number XXXX. Wells Fargo case numbers XXXX and XXXX, account ending in XXXX, are referenced throughout. * * I am disputing this response as incomplete and inadequate for the following reasons : * * XXXX. I explicitly and repeatedly requested electronic payment and was never told it wasn't possible. * * I requested electronic payment during my branch visit and in every subsequent call. At no point did any representative clearly inform me that Wells Fargo policy prohibits electronic refunds over {$2500.00}. Instead, a representative on XX/XX/XXXX actively confirmed that an electronic reversal had been processed and I should expect payment within 710 days. This was false. Had I been given accurate policy information at the outset, I could have planned accordingly. The combination of withholding material policy information and then providing a false confirmation caused direct, measurable delay in the return of {$4200.00} owed to me. * * XXXX. Every agent escalated and noted my requests and nothing happened. * * Each representative I spoke with stated they were escalating my request and noting my account, including my explicit preference for electronic payment. Despite this, I never received a callback, a resolution, or a consistent explanation. A formal complaint was filed during my branch visit on XX/XX/XXXX, yet the only follow-up I received was a single voicemail with no actionable information. On XX/XX/XXXX a representative told me the matter was escalated and being worked on, that a check was on its way, but could not confirm whether the XX/XX/XXXX reversal had actually been processed meaning over 40 days into this, no one at Wells Fargo could tell me with certainty what had actually been done with my {$4200.00}. Repeated internal escalations that produce no response represent a systemic failure of Wells Fargo 's complaint handling process not an isolated miscommunication. I am requesting that Wells Fargo produce a summary of the internal notes and escalations logged on my account from XXXX through XX/XX/year>, as these records should reflect the full scope of my documented requests and their outcomes. * * XXXX. No check was ever sent prior to XX/XX/XXXX and Wells Fargo 's own representative confirmed this. * * Throughout my contacts I was repeatedly told to wait for a refund check. On XX/XX/year>, a representative told me a check was on its way but could not confirm any prior action had been taken. On XX/XX/year> just before Wells Fargo sent written acknowledgment of my CFPB complaint I called again. The representative read me the XX/XX/XXXX resolution letter and confirmed that the XX/XX/XXXX check was the first and only check ever issued. This means I was instructed across multiple contacts at the branch and across 8 more calls to wait for a check that did not exist for over 40 days. * * I filed my CFPB complaint on XX/XX/year> XXXX day after the check was issued on XX/XX/XXXX. The timing strongly suggests the XX/XX/XXXX check was generated in response to escalation pressure rather than normal processing. I am requesting that Wells Fargo confirm in writing exactly when the XX/XX/XXXX check was initiated, by whom, and what action triggered its creation. * The website had said overpayment would be issued in the week of XX/XX/XXXX, and that banner later taken down. \n\n* XXXX. I was given false information about the refund check 's mailing address. * * During multiple contacts I was told a check may have been sent to an old address never associated with this account. This explanation is directly contradicted by Wells Fargo 's own correspondence. On XX/XX/year> the exact date they claim the refund check was issued Wells Fargo successfully mailed an official letter to my correct current address. Additional letters followed on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, all delivered without issue. Their own mail on that precise date proves my address was accurate, on file, and in active use throughout this entire period. The address confusion narrative offered to explain the delay was false. * * XXXX. The Wells Fargo Autograph account should not have been opened and remains active despite multiple closure requests. * * XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/year> email, the Wells Fargo Autograph Card was explicitly described as the default outcome only for customers who did NOT upgrade to XXXX  XXXX XXXX. I selected the upgrade path and requested closure of my Wells Fargo account on XX/XX/year>. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> email confirmed my closure request was received and stated the XXXX XXXX \" will not work '' and should be \" safely ignored. '' Wells Fargo 's own XX/XX/XXXX response confirms the account was closed XX/XX/year>. * * Despite this, in XX/XX/year> I called Wells Fargo and used their own automated phone system to submit an additional closure request for this account. I received no confirmation no email, no letter, no reference number that the request was received or processed. Wells Fargo 's automated system accepted my input and provided nothing in return, leaving me with no way to verify the request was acted upon. * * I am still receiving active statements from Wells Fargo as of XX/XX/year> more than two months after the confirmed closure date and after a second closure request submitted through their own automated system. This account should not be open. I am requesting written confirmation of the current status of this account, when each closure request was logged in their system, and how this account is currently reporting to credit bureaus, as I clearly can not trust Wells Fargo 's own customer experience team nor their website. * * XXXX. Wells Fargo acknowledges service failures but declines compensation without justification. * * Their response states my experience \" did not meet our standards '' and apologizes for \" miscommunication. '' Declining compensation while admitting service failures including a representative providing materially false information about an electronic reversal, and a representative on XX/XX/XXXX confirming the XX/XX/XXXX check was the first and only check ever issued is not an adequate resolution. *","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-19T23:02:16.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"98028","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21388179","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-19T22:20:13.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem during payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Wells Fargo Autograph account should not <em>have</em> <em>been</em> opened and remains <em>active</em> despite <em>multiple</em> closure requests. * * XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/year> email, the Wells Fargo Autograph Card was explicitly described as the default outcome only for customers who did NOT upgrade to XXXX  XXXX XXXX. I selected the upgrade path and requested closure of my Wells Fargo account on XX/XX/year>."]},"sort":[13.058858,"21388179"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22120995","_score":12.564368,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My FHA-insured mortgage on my primary residence was originally serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX approved me for an FHA Special Forbearance Plan covering 12 monthly installments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Under the plan, my contractual monthly Total Payment Due was {$0.00}. XXXX confirmed in writing that no late charges would be assessed and that I would be reported to credit bureaus as current and in a forbearance plan. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a written notice confirming that my FHA Special Forbearance Plan was complete. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a formal written notice stating : \" We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. '' The notice expressly acknowledged that XXXX was prohibited from initiating any foreclosure-related notice or filing while the complete application was under review, and committed to a decision no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \nBefore XXXX completed the loss mitigation evaluation, my loan was transferred to Carrington Mortgage Services , LLC . The pending modification review had not been completed by XXXX before transfer. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( k ), Carrington was required as the transferee servicer to honor the complete loss mitigation application that XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, and to continue the evaluation rather than restart or cancel it.\n\nCarrington has since taken the following actions, each of which I believe violates federal mortgage servicing law and FHA loss mitigation requirements : ( 1 ) Carrington demanded lump-sum repayment of the entire forborne amount and threatened foreclosure. FHA loss mitigation guidance under HUD Handbook 4000.1 does not permit servicers to require lump-sum repayment of forborne amounts as a precondition for bringing an FHA-insured loan current. Multiple FHA loss mitigation options including the COVID-19 Recovery Modification, FHA-HAMP, Standalone Partial Claim, and Recovery Standalone Partial Claim must be evaluated before foreclosure can proceed.\n\n( 2 ) Carrington cancelled my complete loss mitigation application without providing any written notice or written decision. During a phone call, Carrington informed me that my application had been cancelled because they had attempted to call me for a \" second attestation '' and I did not answer. I never received any written request from Carrington for additional documentation, any written request for an attestation, or any written notice of cancellation. This violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ), which requires a written decision stating the specific reason for any denial of a complete loss mitigation application. It also violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ), which requires the servicer to provide written notice specifying what additional information is needed and a reasonable deadline to provide it. A missed phone call is not a permitted basis for cancellation under Regulation X.\n\n( 3 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Carrington issued a Maryland Notice of Intent to Foreclose under Maryland Real Property Article 7-105.1 ( c ). The notice lists my Date of Default as XX/XX/XXXX a date that falls within my active XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan, during which my contractual monthly payment was {$0.00}. The notice claims my loan is 269 days past due and demands {$21000.00} to cure. Carrington appears to have re-characterized forbearance-period suspended installments as delinquent payments after taking over servicing, contrary to the written terms of the XXXX forbearance plan and contrary to XXXXXXXX XXXX written confirmation that I would be reported as current and in a forbearance plan. Carrington also elected not to offer prefile mediation. Under the Notice of Intent to Foreclose, a foreclosure action ( Order to Docket ) may be filed in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX. \n( 4 ) Carrington has not provided me with a single point of contact for my loss mitigation file, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.40.\n\n( 5 ) Carrington has engaged in conduct consistent with prohibited \" dual tracking '' under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ) and ( g ) by issuing a Notice of Intent to Foreclose while a complete loss mitigation application received by the prior servicer on XX/XX/XXXX should have remained pending under federal law.\n\nThe cumulative effect of Carrington 's actions is that an improperly calculated default has been used to initiate Maryland foreclosure proceedings against my primary residence, despite the existence of written documentation from the prior servicer establishing both ( a ) an active forbearance plan with {$0.00} contractually due during the disputed default period, and ( b ) a complete loss mitigation application that was pending evaluation at the time of servicing transfer.\n\nI have attached the following supporting documentation : XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan Approval dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Forbearance Plan Completion Notice dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Post-Forbearance Acknowledgment of Complete Application dated XX/XX/XXXX ; and Carrington Notice of Intent to Foreclose dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nI am simultaneously filing a complaint with the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation and am submitting a Mortgage Assistance Application and formal cover letter directly to Carrington requesting reinstatement of my loss mitigation evaluation as of XX/XX/XXXX. \nGiven that Carrington may file an Order to Docket in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX, I respectfully request expedited review of this complaint. \n\nA few things this narrative does deliberately It opens with XXXXXXXX XXXX written record, not your hardship. Reviewers triage hundreds of complaints. The strongest hook isn't \" I'm in trouble '' it's \" the prior servicer 's written documents contradict the current servicer 's actions. '' That framing makes the violation pattern obvious from the first paragraph. \nIt quotes XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX letter directly. That single sentence \" We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX '' is the most powerful sentence in your entire file. Burying it would be a mistake. Quoting it ensures the reviewer reads it.\n\nIt numbers the violations. Reviewers love enumerated lists because they can map each numbered item to a specific regulatory citation and require Carrington to respond to each one. A flowing narrative is easier to wave away ; a numbered list is not.\n\nIt puts the math dispute front and center. The XX/XX/XXXX default date during a documented forbearance period is the single most exploitable factual error in Carrington 's case. It appears twice once in item ( 3 ) and once in the closing paragraph to ensure no reviewer misses it.\n\nIt closes with the urgency hook. The XX/XX/XXXX potential filing date is the single most important fact for triage prioritization. Putting it in the final sentence guarantees the reviewer sees it when deciding queue priority.\n\nNo personal info, per the form 's instruction. No name, no address, no loan numbers, no SSN. The CFPB form collects all of that separately. This field is pure narrative.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-12T16:48:27.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"210XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22120995","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","date_received":"2026-05-12T15:52:20.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This field is pure <em>narrative</em>."]},"sort":[12.564368,"22120995"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19988876","_score":12.300633,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"SUBJECT : FORMAL COMPLAINT : FORGERY, IDENTITY FRAUD, AND PREDATORY ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION BY XXXX XXXX XXXX AND GM FINANCIAL This complaint details a case of premeditated identity fraud, forgery, and elder financial exploitation committed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the Dealership ) and subsequently ratified by GM Financial through their willful failure to act and their ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nI am a senior citizen over the age of XXXX, qualifying for enhanced protections under Georgia 's laws against elder financial exploitation, including O.C.G.A. XXXX and O.C.G.A. XXXX. The evidence I possess is not circumstantial ; it is definitive forensic proof that a fraudulent auto loan was created in my name through a digitally forged credit application. \n\nThis matter has been escalated beyond a simple consumer dispute and is the subject of an active criminal investigation with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This complaint is intended to run parallel to that investigation to seek regulatory enforcement and financial remedy. \n\nDetailed Chronological Narrative of Fraud The events of XX/XX/year>, establish a clear and undeniable timeline of criminal activity : The Forgery ( XXXX XXXX. ) : XXXX XXXX from GM Financial confirm that the Dealership created and electronically submitted a credit application in my name at XXXX XXXX. This application contained falsified information, including my employment status. \nThe XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. onward ) : I possess an unbroken, unedited XXXX continuous audio recording with verifiable metadata. \n\nThe recording begins at XXXXXXXX XXXX. while I am at my residence in XXXX, miles away from the XXXX dealership. The audio captures me on a phone call with an XXXX XXXX car agent, and ambient identifiers confirm my location. \nThis recording makes it physically and mathematically impossible for me to have been present at the Dealership at XXXX XXXX. to review, authorize, or submit the fraudulent application. \n\nXXXX XXXX : The continuous recording documents my entire commute. It captures my arrival at the Dealership at approximately XXXX XXXX.nearly 90 minutes after the forgery was committed. This is further corroborated by a physical down payment receipt from the dealership, which is time-stamped at XXXXXXXX XXXX \n\nMotive and Recorded Confession : The motive for the fraud was a scheme to bypass underwriting rules. The dealership 's XXXX XXXX, \" XXXX, '' is captured on the audio recording admitting to this \" stipulation fraud. '' He confessed to falsifying my 25-year history as a Sole Proprietor to list me as a W-2 \" Manager, '' stating : '' The issue I kept running into was proving income, this is the only bank that would allow me to do it without having to send them a pay stub. '' Fraud in the Factum ( The Deceptive Signature ) : When I was finally instructed to sign documents later that afternoon, XXXX used active artifice to trick me into signing the signature page of the forged application. He physically concealed the fraudulent front page and is recorded lying about the nature of the document : '' Thats just the credit app ; thats the printed-up version of what you have already signed. '' Pattern of Premeditated, Multi-Bank Fraud : This was not an isolated incident but part of a wider \" shotgunning '' scheme to defraud multiple lenders. I have evidence that the Dealership attempted to pass the same falsified profile to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX earlier that same day. Furthermore, I have received a letter from XXXX XXXX confirming that the Dealership also submitted a credit application to their institution, which was subsequently denied. This establishes an undeniable pattern of repeatedly using my identity to submit fraudulent applications across the financial industry. \n\nXX/XX/year> Estimated timeline. \nAudio recording start time around XXXX XXXX \nWalked in dealership around XXXXXXXX XXXX \nStart signing ( wet signature ) around XXXXXXXX XXXX. into the recording Receipt for down payment given around XXXXXXXX XXXX into the recording Timestamp on down payment receipt is XXXXXXXX XXXX \nMeeting over around XXXXXXXX XXXX \n1. Credit Application Creation Time was XXXX XXXX \nCredit Application Printed Time XXXXXXXX XXXX I believe this was printed blank and the copy I signed around XXXX XXXX \nThis is the copy the dealership has. \n2. Credit Application Creation Time was XXXX XXXX \nCredit Application Printed Time XXXX XXXX. This copy has the electronic signature. This is the copy GM Financial has. Notice this credit application has the same Creation Time, but the Printed Time is XXXXXXXX XXXX which is around the time I was really at the dealership. \n\nComplaint Against GM Financial : Willful Blindness and FCRA Violations I have presented this irrefutable evidence to GM Financial on multiple occasions. \n\nDespite possessing proof that the underlying contract is void due to forgery, GM Financial has failed to take appropriate action. They have refused to unwind the fraudulent contract and charge it back to the responsible dealership. \n\nWorse, they continue to knowingly furnish derogatory and inaccurate information to the credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  ) on a void account. This is a willful violation of their duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). They are actively damaging my credit based on a crime committed against me.\n\nFull Investigation : I request the CFPB launch a formal investigation into the predatory, fraudulent, and illegal practices of both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and GM Financial for their roles in originating and servicing a loan procured through forgery and elder financial exploitation. \n\nThis was not a misunderstanding or a clerical error ; it was a deliberate, multi-layered crime. I am prepared to provide the unedited audio files and all corroborating evidence to your office to assist in the investigation. \n\nAttachments : Police Report Case # XXXX Sincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-05T03:17:47.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30318","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19988876","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"General Motors Financial Company, Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-05T02:35:07.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Loan opened without my consent or knowledge"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This matter has <em>been</em> escalated beyond a simple consumer <em>dispute</em> and is the subject of an <em>active</em> criminal investigation with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This <em>complaint</em> is intended to run parallel to that investigation to seek regulatory enforcement and financial remedy."]},"sort":[12.300633,"19988876"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":78,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":78}]}},"product":{"doc_count":78,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":35,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":35}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":14,"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":12},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":4},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":5},{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":4},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"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":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":78,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":15,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":7},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":5},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":13}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":4},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":7,"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":6},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":2},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged too much interest","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":2,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan opened without my consent or knowledge","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 the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Notice to repossess","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":78,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":78}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":78,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":51},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":23},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":4}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":78,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":78}]}},"company":{"doc_count":78,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":17},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":9},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":8},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":4},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":2},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"AFNI INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Continental Finance Company, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Creative Finance, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DigniFi","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA","doc_count":1},{"key":"General Motors Financial Company, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Guild Holdings Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Prisma Capital LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":78,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":10},{"key":"CA","doc_count":9},{"key":"GA","doc_count":7},{"key":"MI","doc_count":7},{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"NY","doc_count":5},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"IN","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"MO","doc_count":3},{"key":"NV","doc_count":3},{"key":"WA","doc_count":3},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AK","doc_count":1},{"key":"AR","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"RI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":78,"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":42},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":78,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":9},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4}]}}},"_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":[12.302897,"19988876"],"3":[8.900102,"16220992"],"4":[5.526596,"12354121"]}}}