{"took":126,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":40,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19340378","_score":20.833656,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Consumer Complaint Narrative Date : XX/XX/2026 Subject : Complaint Against PenFed Credit Union Closed Credit Card Account I am submitting this complaint against Pentagon Federal Credit Union ( PenFed ) regarding improper billing practices following the closure of my credit card account. \n\nThe account was closed by PenFed despite being current at the time of closure and having more than XXXX ( XXXX ) years of positive payment history. \n\nAfter the account was closed, PenFed continued to assess interest charges, penalty fees, delinquent charges, and applied a penalty APR. These charges were applied after the creditor terminated the account relationship. \n\nAttached as Exhibit A is my PenFed XX/XX/2026 account statement, which reflects post-closure interest charges, delinquent fees, and penalty APR notices applied after the account was closed while current. \n\nI dispute all post-closure charges and respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review PenFeds practices, require correction of the account balance, and prevent inaccurate credit reporting. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-08T16:12:37.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"009XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19340378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-02-08T16:05:49.000Z","state":"PR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB Consumer <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Date : XX/XX/2026 <em>Subject</em> : <em>Complaint</em> Against PenFed Credit Union Closed Credit Card Account I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> against Pentagon Federal Credit Union ( PenFed ) <em>regarding</em> <em>improper</em> billing practices following the closure of my credit card account. \n\nThe account was closed by PenFed despite being current at the time of closure and having more than XXXX ( XXXX ) years of positive payment history."]},"sort":[20.833656,"19340378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11776556","_score":20.584625,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Failure to Provide Debt Validation Notice and Improper Collection Practices Narrative : I am filing a complaint against Velocity Investments LLC for failing to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and engaging in improper collection practices.\n\n1. Failure to Send a Debt Validation Notice : Velocity Investments LLC has been attempting to collect a debt allegedly purchased from XXXX XXXX, yet they failed to send me a required debt validation notice within five days of their initial contact, as mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ). I have never received any written communication from Velocity Investments LLC regarding this debt.\n\n2. Lack of Debt Validation and Proof of Ownership : I am disputing the debts validity and have sent Velocity a formal debt validation letter requesting : Proof of ownership of the debt, including a chain of assignment from XXXX XXXX to Velocity. \nThe first date of delinquency for the debt. \nCompliance with state laws, including proof of licensing in Illinois. \n\n3. Continued Harm : The lack of validation and proper notice from Velocity Investments LLC has caused harm to my credit profile. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX continues to report the debt as a charge-off despite its transfer, creating confusion and double reporting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-26T22:26:23.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"60653","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11776556","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Velocity Portfolio Group","date_received":"2025-01-26T22:17:10.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Failure to Provide Debt Validation Notice and <em>Improper</em> Collection Practices <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing a <em>complaint</em> against Velocity Investments LLC for failing to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and engaging in <em>improper</em> collection practices.\n\n1."]},"sort":[20.584625,"11776556"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18209862","_score":19.615044,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative I am submitting this complaint to formally report misrepresentation, improper servicing, and harmful data practices by XXXX  related to my student loans. \n\nXXXX has misrepresented the nature, status, and terms of my student loans, including but not limited to repayment options, eligibility for relief programs, and the accuracy of loan balances and reporting. As a result of these actions, I have suffered financial harm, credit damage, and emotional distress. \n\nAdditionally, XXXX  has shared inaccurate and misleading information about my student loans with third parties, including credit reporting agencies, which has negatively impacted my credit profile. Despite my attempts to obtain clarity and correction, XXXX  failed to provide transparent, consistent, or truthful information regarding my loans. \n\nXXXX is currently the subject of state and federal enforcement actions and lawsuits related to deceptive practices and borrower misrepresentation. Based on my experience, I believe my situation falls squarely within the same pattern of misconduct, including steering borrowers into unfavorable outcomes and failing to act in the borrowers best interest. \n\nXXXX  conduct constitutes : Material misrepresentation of loan terms and borrower options Failure to properly inform me of relief, discharge, or forgiveness eligibility Inaccurate credit reporting and data sharing Unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) These actions have caused ongoing financial hardship and denied me the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding my student debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-23T17:21:12.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"368XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18209862","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-22T01:08:35.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> to formally report misrepresentation, <em>improper</em> servicing, and harmful data practices by XXXX  related to my student loans. \n\nXXXX has misrepresented the nature, status, and terms of my student loans, including but not limited to repayment options, eligibility for relief programs, and the accuracy of loan balances and reporting. As a result of these actions, I have suffered financial harm, credit damage, and emotional distress."]},"sort":[19.615044,"18209862"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21398305","_score":18.17261,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Re : Follow-Up Complaint Improper Handling of School Misconduct Discharge Application I am submitting this follow-up complaint regarding my private student loan serviced by MOHELA and owned by XXXX, and specifically the handling of my School Misconduct Discharge application. \n\nI previously submitted a detailed School Misconduct Discharge application concerning loans used to attend XXXX XXXX XXXX a for-profit school that has since closed and has been subject to public findings of deceptive recruiting and misrepresentation. My application included a comprehensive narrative describing the schools misconduct, including misrepresentations regarding job placement, transferability of credits, program value, and loan terms, as well as the financial and educational harm I suffered as a result. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I received a denial letter. However, the denial did not provide a meaningful or individualized explanation. Instead, the company cited all possible denial reason codes ( 1 through 7 ), including insufficient misconduct, insufficient evidence, insufficient harm, lack of causation, and timeliness issues. \n\nThis blanket denial is not a good-faith response and does not address my specific application. It is logically inconsistent to assert every possible deficiency simultaneously, particularly where a detailed narrative and supporting context were provided. The response fails to identify what, if anything, was actually lacking in my submission, and therefore prevents me from meaningfully responding, supplementing, or correcting any perceived deficiencies. \n\nAdditionally, the use of time-based denial codes ( related to the age of the loan or when I became aware of the misconduct ) is unreasonable given that the nature and impact of the misrepresentations only became clear over time, particularly when I attempted to transfer credits and later became aware of public investigations into the schools practices. \n\nBecause of this, I believe my application was not properly or fairly reviewed. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am requesting that the company : 1. Conduct a good-faith, individualized review of my School Misconduct Discharge application ; 2. Provide a clear and specific explanation identifying any actual deficiencies in my submission ; 3. Reconsider my eligibility for discharge based on the facts presented ; 4. Provide a complete accounting of the basis for any continued denial. \n\nThis matter involves substantial financial harm, including repayment far exceeding the original principal amount for a program that failed to deliver the promised educational and career outcomes. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-20T14:21:44.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"19023","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21398305","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MOHELA","date_received":"2026-04-20T14:14:19.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Re : Follow-Up <em>Complaint</em> <em>Improper</em> Handling of School Misconduct Discharge Application I am submitting this follow-up <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> my private student loan serviced by MOHELA and owned by XXXX, and specifically the handling of my School Misconduct Discharge application."]},"sort":[18.17261,"21398305"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22105096","_score":18.12481,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXXCompany: F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc.XXXXOriginal Creditor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attempts to collect debt not owed / Continued collection during disputeXXXXComplaint Narrative:XXXXI am the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am filing this complaint regarding an improper and unlawful debt collection attempt by F.H. Cann & Associates for an alleged debt of XXXX  originating from XXXX XXXX XXXXThis debt is entirely invalid and is the subject of an active, documented dispute with the original creditor. The charges belong to a tenantXXXX XXXX XXXX  whose lease began on XX/XX/XXXX, and explicitly assigns him the financial responsibility for all gas utilities. XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted in writing that XXXX XXXX XXXX ordered the service disconnected on XX/XX/XXXX but the utility failed to execute their own work order.XXXXDespite having the lease and the written dispute on file, XXXX XXXX XXXX  unlawfully referred this to F.H. Cann & Associates. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a formal FDCPA Notice of Dispute directly through the F.H. Cann & Associates electronic web portal, demanding validation and an immediate cessation of collections. I also dispatched a hard copy via USPS Certified Mail (Tracking: XXXX), currently under USPS Investigation (Search ID XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXI am filing this CFPB complaint because F.H. Cann & Associates is attempting to collect a definitively disputed corporate debt that was caused by an original creditor's administrative failure.\"","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-12T05:43:09.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"082XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22105096","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc.","date_received":"2026-05-12T05:35:29.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cann & Associates, Inc.XXXXOriginal Creditor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attempts to collect debt not owed / Continued collection during disputeXXXXComplaint <em>Narrative</em>:XXXXI am the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am filing this <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> an <em>improper</em> and unlawful debt collection attempt by F.H."]},"sort":[18.12481,"22105096"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15433598","_score":17.95417,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Rebuttal Complaint Against XXXX XXXX Misrepresentation, Improper Handling of Complaint, and Continuing Harm CFPB Case # : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Case # : XXXX To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting this rebuttal complaint regarding XXXX XXXX correspondence dated XX/XX/year> ( delivered to me via XXXX ). The letter contains false, misleading, and retaliatory statements that distort the nature of my complaint and fail to resolve the substantive issues raised. \n\nXXXX. Misrepresentation of Unauthorized Submission XXXX XXXX asserts that the complaint submitted to the CFPB may have been submitted by an unauthorized party. This statement is patently false. I personally filed my complaint with the CFPB, as the primary consumer affected. Any suggestion that my complaint originated from an unauthorized third party is an attempt to discredit and delegitimize my filing. Such misrepresentation undermines the CFPB complaint process and could chill consumer participation by insinuating fraud where none exists. \n\nXXXX. Improper Cease and Desist Characterization XXXX XXXX letter claims my accounts are under a cease and desist status. I have not issued such a directive. This is an improper designation being used to : - Avoid addressing the substantive issues in my complaint ; - Create a false narrative that I am obstructing communication ; and - Deflect accountability for inaccurate and damaging reporting practices. \nThis tactic constitutes bad faith conduct and a failure to engage with the consumer complaint in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and related consumer protection standards. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Address Core Issues XXXX XXXX has not responded to the substance of my original complaint, which concerned : - Inaccurate and potentially re-aged reporting of charged-off accounts ; - Violation of statutory timeframes regarding account reporting and debt collection ; and - Continuing harm to my creditworthiness and financial stability as a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Instead of investigating and remedying these issues, XXXX XXXX issued a deflective letter designed to evade accountability. \n\nXXXX. Request for CFPB Action Given XXXX XXXX  pattern of misleading responses, noncompliance, and evasive tactics, I respectfully request that the CFPB : XXXX. Investigate XXXXXXXX XXXX  misrepresentation that my complaint was unauthorized. \n\n2. Compel XXXX XXXX to provide a substantive response to the underlying credit reporting and collection issues raised. \n\nXXXX. Monitor for potential retaliation, as this correspondence appears designed to discourage me from exercising my consumer rights. \n\n4. Place XXXX XXXX on heightened review for its response tactics to consumer complaints. \n\nConclusion : I reaffirm that my complaint was personally and legitimately filed with the CFPB. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> letter is not only misleading but also an affront to consumer rights. I request that the CFPB hold XXXX XXXX accountable for these practices and ensure that my original complaint is investigated in full.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-21T20:20:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"799XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15433598","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CBC Companies, Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-21T20:20:07.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Rebuttal <em>Complaint</em> Against XXXX XXXX Misrepresentation, <em>Improper</em> Handling of <em>Complaint</em>, and Continuing Harm CFPB Case # : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Case # : XXXX To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting this rebuttal <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> XXXX XXXX correspondence dated XX/XX/year> ( delivered to me via XXXX ). The letter contains false, misleading, and retaliatory statements that distort the nature of my <em>complaint</em> and fail to resolve the substantive issues raised. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[17.95417,"15433598"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14344391","_score":16.289227,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary.\n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically Equifaxs refusal to provide verification documentation in response to a formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis.\n\nSubject : Complaint against Equifax for Improper Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : I am filing this complaint against Equifax for its improper reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ). Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, Equifax marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or explanation. \n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/year>, I sent a certified dispute directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ).\n\nIn my dispute letter to Equifax ( dated the same day ), I specifically requested verification of the original signed agreement. Equifax failed to obtain or acknowledge this critical document, which as I now provide clearly states the funds were not for personal, family, or household use.\n\nThis proves the debt is commercial in nature and therefore not subject to consumer credit reporting under the FCRA. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I filed a CFPB complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX which remains unresolved. \nOn XX/XX/year>, Equifax closed its reinvestigation and issued results stating the account was verified as accurate and updated, yet provided no documentation or acknowledgment of the commercial-use clause in the loan agreement. \nDue to Equifaxs non-compliance with my documentation request, I sent a formal verification demand letter, citing violations of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and 616 & 617. I explicitly requested the documentation used to verify the account, the method of verification, and the name of the party who confirmed the information.\n\nEquifax has refused to provide any of this information, despite my formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nAny attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is especially concerning given that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to respond to both my direct dispute and my prior CFPB complaint. This suggests that Equifaxs verification process was not only inadequate but potentially misleading.\n\nI am not seeking unnecessary conflict I am requesting only the lawful correction of inaccurate and unverified information. If Equifax deletes the account in full and in good faith, I will consider the matter resolved and take no further action regarding this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-28T19:18:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14344391","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-28T19:01:34.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : <em>Complaint</em> against Equifax for <em>Improper</em> Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against Equifax for its <em>improper</em> reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX )."]},"sort":[16.289227,"14344391"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14352945","_score":16.285389,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary. \n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically TransUnions refusal to provide verification documentation in response to a formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis.\n\nSubject : Complaint against TransUnion for Improper Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623 and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : I am filing this complaint against TransUnion for its improper reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ). Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, TransUnion marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or explanation.\n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/year>, I sent a certified dispute directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ). \nIn my dispute letter to TransUnion dated XX/XX/year>, I specifically requested verification of the original signed agreement. TransUnion failed to obtain or acknowledge this critical document, which as I now provide clearly states the funds were not for personal, family, or household use. \nThis proves the debt is commercial in nature and therefore not subject to consumer credit reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I filed a CFPB complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which remains unresolved. \nOn XX/XX/year>, TransUnion closed its reinvestigation and issued results stating the account was verified as accurate and updated, yet provided no documentation or acknowledgment of the commercial-use clause in the loan agreement. \nDue to TransUnions non-compliance with my documentation request, I sent a formal verification demand letter, citing violations of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and 616 & 617. I explicitly requested the documentation used to verify the account, the method of verification, and the name of the party who confirmed the information.\n\nTransUnion has refused to provide any of this information, despite my formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nAny attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is particularly concerning given that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to respond to both my direct dispute and my prior CFPB complaint. This suggests that TransUnions verification process was not only inadequate but potentially misleading. \n\nI am not seeking unnecessary conflict I am requesting only the lawful correction of inaccurate and unverified information. If TransUnion deletes the account in full and in good faith, I will consider the matter fully resolved and take no further action regarding this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-28T17:47:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14352945","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-28T17:35:05.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : <em>Complaint</em> against TransUnion for <em>Improper</em> Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623 and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against TransUnion for its <em>improper</em> reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX )."]},"sort":[16.285389,"14352945"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14757383","_score":15.792883,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint Inaccurate Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax ) Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this complaint regarding an unresolved and inaccurately reported collection account from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # ending in XXXX ) that continues to be reported improperly on my Equifax credit file, despite a formal dispute. I believe Equifax and XXXX XXXX XXXX are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), particularly 1681i and 1681e ( b ), for failing to maintain accurate and complete consumer reporting. \n\nAccount Details : - Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : Ending in XXXX - Balance : $ XXXX High Credit : {$690.00} - Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX - First Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX - Last Reported : XX/XX/XXXX - Account Status : Marked as both CLOSED and OPEN ( conflicting ) - Account Type : Debt Buyer Collection / Retail Issues : 1. The account is marked as both CLOSED and OPEN, and listed as COLLECTION, which is inconsistent and misleading.\n\n2. The account continues to report C ( collection ) codes monthly with no actual payment activity, suggesting continued re-aging and unfair scoring impact.\n\n3. Monthly balance entries show no activity since XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, but the debt remains reported as active with no updates to reflect resolution. \n4. The date of first delinquency ( XX/XX/XXXX ) is earlier than the listed open date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), suggesting potential unlawful re-aging of the debt. \n5. The dispute only resulted in a Consumer disputes account notation, without correction, verification explanation, or deletion indicating a failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. \nXXXX. Narrative Codes : XXXX Consumer Disputes This Account Information ; XXXX Collection Account ; XXXX Reinvestigation In Process ( No result provided ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-20T14:40:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"61201","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14757383","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-20T14:27:28.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Formal <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax ) Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> an unresolved and inaccurately reported collection account from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # ending in XXXX ) that continues to be reported <em>improperly</em> on my Equifax credit file, despite a formal dispute."]},"sort":[15.792883,"14757383"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20342287","_score":15.12617,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Complaint Narrative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) Processing Error and Servicer Mismanagement XXXX XXXX  I am submitting this complaint to request immediate intervention and resolution regarding a significant error in the handling of my federal student loans under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) program. \n\nI consolidated my federal student loans, including Parent PLUS loans, with the explicit intent of applying my highest qualifying payment count ( over XXXX qualifying payments ) across all balances in accordance with PSLF guidelines. At the time of consolidation, my loans had already met and exceeded the XXXX threshold required for forgiveness. \n\nHowever, during the consolidation process, an administrative failure occurred. According to a formal response provided to XXXX XXXX XXXX office by Federal Student Aid, my loans were * * forgiven prematurely in the middle of the consolidation process * *, which prevented the consolidation from being completed. As a result : * My loans were improperly * * separated after consolidation * * * A portion of my loans was forgiven, while others were left active * My qualifying payment count was drastically reduced from over XXXX payments to only XXXX payments * I was required to request an opt-out of forgiveness during consolidation, which I did, but * * that request was never processed or honored * * * I am now being required to continue making payments on loans that should have already been forgiven This situation is not due to any error on my part. I followed all required steps, submitted the appropriate requests, and acted in good faith throughout the process. The failure lies with the loan servicers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) and/or Federal Student Aids processing systems. \n\nDespite my repeated efforts to resolve this issue, including spending hours on hold with both servicers and submitting multiple formal complaints, no resolution has been provided. My Federal Student Aid feedback case numbers include : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This has caused significant financial and emotional distress, as I am being held responsible for a balance that should have been discharged under PSLF.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T14:14:43.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"30215","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20342287","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Servicer under contract with Federal Student Aid","date_received":"2026-03-17T18:26:32.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>Subject</em> : Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) Processing Error and Servicer Mismanagement XXXX XXXX  I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> to request immediate intervention and resolution <em>regarding</em> a significant error in the handling of my federal student loans under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) program."]},"sort":[15.12617,"20342287"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19576339","_score":14.746715,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Company : IC Systems , Inc. \nIssue : Incorrect information on credit report Sub-Issue : Debt not verified / improper collection reporting Complaint Narrative I am submitting this complaint regarding inaccurate and unverified credit reporting by IC Systems , Inc. \n\nIC Systems has placed a collection account on my consumer report without providing proper validation and disclosures required under federal law.\n\nUnder 12 CFR 1006.34 ( Regulation F ), a debt collector must provide a written validation notice containing specific disclosures regarding the debt, including itemization and consumer dispute rights. I have not received proper validation documentation as required.\n\nUnder 12 CFR 1006.34 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( i ), consumers must be given a meaningful opportunity to dispute the debt. Despite my dispute, IC Systems continues to report this alleged account without providing documentary verification.\n\nAdditionally, continued reporting of an unverified debt may violate : FCRA 623 ( b ) Furnisher duty to conduct a meaningful investigation FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum possible accuracy requirement FDCPA 807 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ) Prohibiting false or misleading representations FDCPA 809 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) Debt validation requirements As a Texas resident, IC Systems is also subject to the Texas Debt Collection Act ( Texas Finance Code 392.304 ), which prohibits : Misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a debt Using deceptive means to collect a debt Reporting inaccurate credit information IC Systems has failed to provide : A copy of the original signed agreement bearing my authorization A complete itemized account history Documentation establishing legal ownership or chain of assignment The purchase or assignment agreement between IC Systems and the original creditor Proof that the reported balance is accurate Verification that the Date of First Delinquency complies with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) I am disputing owing any and all alleged debts to IC Systems. \n\nI am formally requesting full debt validation and documentary proof of their legal authority to collect and furnish this account I am also revoking consent for IC Systems to communicate with me via telephone, text message, or electronic communications. All future communications must be in writing. \n\nIf IC Systems can not produce competent documentary evidence substantiating this alleged debt, they must : Cease reporting the account to all consumer reporting agencies ; and Request deletion of the tradeline. \n\nI am not admitting liability. I am requesting compliance with federal and Texas consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-18T01:48:26.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Telecommunications debt","zip_code":"77498","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19576339","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"I.C. System, Inc.","date_received":"2026-02-18T01:04:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Sub-Issue : Debt not verified / <em>improper</em> collection reporting <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> inaccurate and unverified credit reporting by IC Systems , Inc. \n\nIC Systems has placed a collection account on my consumer report without providing proper validation and disclosures required under federal law."]},"sort":[14.746715,"19576339"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19247982","_score":14.001811,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT Company : Earnest Operations LLC Product : Refinance Student Loan Issue Type : Loan processing / underwriting / servicing Primary Issue : Improper documentation demand after approval and execution ; funding delay Secondary Issue : Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding egregious and unacceptable conduct by Earnest in connection with a loan that was already approved, executed, and scheduled for funding, when Earnest demanded new and nonexistent income documentation XXXX day prior to funding. \n\nThis conduct is profoundly disruptive, unreasonable, and inconsistent with fair lending and servicing standards. \n\nApproved and Executed Loan My loan application was fully completed, reviewed, approved, and formally executed. I signed the loan documents in reliance on Earnests approval and representations that underwriting was complete and funding was imminent. \n\nDespite this, XXXX day prior to funding, Earnest demanded that I produce a XXXX, without prior notice and without justification. \n\nNonexistent Documentation Demand I do not possess a XXXX. This was neither concealed nor ambiguous at any point in the application process. \n\nI am a XXXX XXXX XXXX and my income structure is inherently XXXX, involving XXXX XXXX  income and XXXX compensation. In addition, a substantial portion of my historical documentation is maintained in XXXX XXXX, where I am originally based. \n\nEarnest was fully awareor should have been fully awareof this income structure before approving and executing the loan. \n\nXXXX  Income Fully Disclosed and Permitted For clarity, my application accurately and transparently disclosed multiple qualifying income sources, including : XXXX XXXX income XXXX income XXXX XXXX  income Earnests own application platform explicitly allows and evaluates XXXX and XXXX income and assets, and these disclosed income streams formed the basis of the loan approval. Requiring a single, nonexistent XXXX after approval and execution directly contradicts Earnests underwriting framework and representations to borrowers.\n\nUnfair and Deceptive Conduct Demanding new or different documentation after approva and execution, particularly documentation that does not exist, constitutes unfair and deceptive conduct. It undermines borrower reliance, disrupts financial planning, and reflects deficient internal controls. \n\nI expressly offered reasonable alternatives, including : Government-issued identification Employer or agency verification Contract documentation Pay statements These were ignored in favor of insisting on a XXXX at the XXXX hour. \n\nHarm Caused Earnests actions caused : Significant distress and disruption Risk of funding failure through no fault of my own Loss of time and resources Undermined reliance on an executed loan agreement This conduct is especially concerning given the timingXXXX XXXX prior to fundingand the absence of any new information justifying reopening underwriting. To reiterate, this loan was already fully approved and signed for Earnests sudden hold on funding is grossly unacceptable and must be resolved immediately with the funding of the approved Refinance Loan today.\n\nRequested Resolution I am requesting that the CFPB require Earnest to : XXXX. Proceed with funding under the originally approved and executed terms without improper or impossible documentation demands ; XXXX. Provide a written explanation for why underwriting was reopened post-execution ; XXXX. Confirm corrective action to prevent borrowers from being subjected to last-minute, nonexistent documentation requirements ; and XXXX Review this matter for potential UDAAP violations.\n\nEarnests conduct reflects a breakdown in underwriting integrity and borrower protections. I am submitting this complaint to ensure accountability and to prevent similar treatment of other borrowers. \n\nI reserve all rights.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-04T18:52:28.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"908XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19247982","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Earnest Inc.","date_received":"2026-02-04T18:44:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with signing the paperwork"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> Company : Earnest Operations LLC Product : Refinance Student Loan Issue Type : Loan processing / underwriting / servicing Primary Issue : <em>Improper</em> documentation demand after approval and execution ; funding delay Secondary Issue : Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am filing this <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> egregious and unacceptable conduct by Earnest in connection with a loan that was already approved, executed, and scheduled for funding, when"]},"sort":[14.001811,"19247982"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18061791","_score":13.671733,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Complainant : XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SC XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/year> Last Four of SSN : XXXX Business Entity : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Collector / Furnisher : Mutual Management Services LLC Principal / Property Owner : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( South Carolina ) Account Number : XXXX Property Location : XXXX, South Carolina XXXX Summary of Complaint Mutual Management Services LLC , acting on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has attempted to collect excessive and improper late fees arising from a commercial lease, while simultaneously reporting the alleged balance to consumer credit reporting agencies under my personal credit profile, despite the absence of any personal guarantee. \n\nThe alleged balance of {$17000.00} is composed almost entirely of retroactively assessed late fees, not unpaid base rent. These fees were never contemporaneously disclosed or demanded during the tenancy, despite continued acceptance of rent payments. \n\nIn addition, the landlord and its agent have made false and misleading statements suggesting lease default or abandonment, despite the lease being properly concluded and the premises being surrendered in accordance with their instructions. \n\nFacts The lease agreement at issue is a commercial lease executed solely by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe landlord and property owner is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a South Carolina company. \n\nMutual Management Services LLC is acting as the collection agent on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI, XXXX XXXX, did not execute a personal guarantee and am not personally liable for any lease obligations. \n\nThe lease contains no clause requiring or permitting personal liability. \n\nRent payments were consistently made by check and sent via signature-required certified mail. \n\nAt no time during the tenancy was I notified that rent had not been received or that any portion of rent was allegedly unpaid. \n\nDespite continued acceptance of rent payments, Mutual Management Services LLC later asserted a balance driven almost entirely by late fees and penalties, not unpaid rent. \n\nMultiple late fees were retroactively assessed and batch-posted, including several consecutive late fees applied simultaneously months after the periods to which they allegedly relate. \n\nMutual Management Services LLC has failed to identify specific months of unpaid rent, despite repeated written requests to do so. \n\nDespite the commercial nature of the lease and absence of a personal guarantee, Mutual Management Services LLC reported the alleged debt to consumer credit reporting agencies under my personal credit profile. \n\nI disputed both the validity of the late fees and the improper consumer credit reporting in writing. \n\nMutual Management Services LLC has continued collection efforts and consumer credit reporting without resolving the dispute or correcting the reporting. \n\nFalse Claims Regarding Lease Termination and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX did not default on or abandon the lease. \n\nWe timely notified the landlord and its agent that we would not renew the lease and would vacate the premises at the end of the lease term, as permitted under the lease. \n\nWe were explicitly instructed by the landlord or its agent to return the keys via mail, which we did. \n\nThe premises were fully vacated, cleaned, and left in good condition, and all keys were returned as instructed. \n\nA few days after vacatur, the landlord or its representative inspected the premises and thanked us for cleaning and leaving the space in good condition. \n\nAny assertion that the lease was abandoned, defaulted, or improperly surrendered is false and misleading. \n\nThese false statements have been used to justify improper charges and to bolster collection efforts, further demonstrating unfair and deceptive conduct. \nWhy This Is Improper Excessive, retroactive late fees assessed without contemporaneous notice constitute unfair and abusive collection practices. \n\nAllowing a tenant to remain in possession for years, accepting rent payments, and later asserting tens of thousands of dollars in penalties is deceptive. \n\nMisrepresenting a proper end-of-lease vacatur as a default or abandonment is materially false. \n\nReporting a commercial lease obligation as a personal consumer debt where no personal guarantee exists is inaccurate and misleading. \n\nUnder the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ), furnishers must ensure accuracy, conduct reasonable investigations upon dispute, and correct or delete unverifiable information. \n\nA business lease obligation attributed to an individual consumer can not be accurately verified and should not appear on a personal credit report. \n\nHarm Experienced As a result of this conduct : My personal credit profile has been damaged, I have experienced financial and reputational harm, My business has been subjected to improper collection pressure, and A commercial accounting dispute has been improperly escalated into the consumer credit system through false narratives.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-16T01:57:09.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"29016","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18061791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mutual Management Services LLC","date_received":"2025-12-16T01:31:47.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Harm Experienced As a result of this conduct : My personal credit profile has been damaged, I have experienced financial and reputational harm, My business has been <em>subjected</em> to <em>improper</em> collection pressure, and A commercial accounting dispute has been <em>improperly</em> escalated into the consumer credit system through false <em>narratives</em>."]},"sort":[13.671733,"18061791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18427053","_score":12.945981,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT UPDATED SUBMISSION Company : Zwicker & Associates, P.C. \nRelated Company : XXXX XXXX  Product : Credit card Issue : False statements or representation ; Improper investigation ; Inaccurate information provided to a federal regulator Account : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I am submitting this complaint to report materially inconsistent and misleading representations made by Zwicker & Associates, P.C. ( Zwicker ) to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concerning XXXX XXXX  account ending XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and to request clarification necessary for accurate regulatory oversight. \n\nThis complaint is based on Zwickers CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, which present irreconcilable positions regarding Zwickers role, knowledge, and responsibility for the account at issue. \n\nXXXX. Inconsistent Representations Regarding Agency Status In its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response, Zwicker asserted that it was no longer representing XXXX XXXX and that its file regarding this account was closed. This assertion conflicts with other information provided to the Bureau during the same period. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX  contemporaneous regulatory communications directed me to Zwicker as the point of contact for this account. Zwicker did not disclose this contradiction or explain how its asserted non-representation status aligned with XXXX XXXX representations to the Bureau. \n\nThese inconsistent statements prevent a clear determination of which entity was responsible for investigation, validation, and regulatory compliance at the time Zwicker submitted its response. \n\nXXXX. Demonstrated Access to Non-Public Information Inconsistent with Claimed Non-Involvement Despite asserting that it was no longer involved with the account, Zwickers XX/XX/XXXX response reflects detailed, non-public knowledge of the procedural posture of my active XXXX  arbitration involving XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), as well as knowledge of communications involving successor counsel. \n\nThis information is not publicly available and would ordinarily be accessible only to an entity with ongoing access to the account file, litigation materials, or internal coordination with XXXX XXXX  or its agents. \n\nZwicker did not explain how it obtained or retained access to this non-public information while simultaneously disclaiming representation or responsibility for the account. \n\nXXXX. Obstruction of Regulatory Clarity Through Shifting Positions Taken together, Zwickers submissions suggest a pattern in which the firm alternately disclaims involvement when addressing substantive validation and investigative obligations, while demonstrating detailed involvement when responding to the Bureau. \n\nThis lack of clarity regarding the scope and timing of Zwickers agency relationship with XXXX XXXX  materially frustrates the XXXX ability to assess whether : a reasonable investigation was conducted ; statutory duties were fulfilled by the appropriate party ; and regulatory responses were reviewed for factual accuracy by a responsible attorney. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Identify Responsible Reviewing Attorney Despite the seriousness of the representations made, Zwicker has not identified the individual attorney responsible for reviewing and certifying the accuracy of its CFPB submissions.\n\nWithout identification of the reviewing attorney or clarification of Zwickers authority at the time of submission, the XXXX can not determine whether these responses were subject to meaningful legal or factual review prior to filing. \n\nREQUESTED CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that the XXXX : XXXX. Require Zwicker & Associates, P.C. to state the specific date on which its agency or representation relationship with XXXX XXXX  concerning this account ended, if at all. \nXXXX. Require Zwicker to explain how it retained access to non-public account or arbitration information after that date, if it contends that representation had already ceased. \nXXXX. Clarify whether XXXXXXXX XXXX  and Zwicker provided consistent representations to the XXXX regarding responsibility for this account during the relevant period. \nXXXX. Require Zwicker to identify the attorney responsible for reviewing and approving its CFPB submissions, including the XX/XX/XXXX response. \nXXXX. Investigate whether the inconsistent representations impaired the XXXX ability to evaluate compliance with federal consumer protection statutes. \n\nCONSUMER STATEMENT This complaint is submitted in good faith to ensure the accuracy of the regulatory record and to permit effective oversight. I am not requesting that the XXXX adjudicate the underlying dispute, but rather that it ensure transparency, accountability, and consistency in representations made to a federal regulator.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-02T19:57:46.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"33596","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18427053","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES","date_received":"2026-01-02T19:48:22.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Related Company : XXXX XXXX  Product : Credit card Issue : False statements or representation ; <em>Improper</em> investigation ; Inaccurate information provided to a federal regulator Account : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> to report materially inconsistent and misleading representations made by Zwicker & Associates, P.C. ( Zwicker ) to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concerning XXXX XXXX  account ending XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,"]},"sort":[12.945981,"18427053"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18609562","_score":12.91519,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT INACCURATE STUDENT LOAN CREDIT REPORTING AFTER XXXX  XXXX Consumer Information Name : XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX PA XXXX XXXX of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX Company Being Complained About [ MOHELA / XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX You may submit separate complaints for each company ) Product Student Loans Issue Incorrect information on credit report Problem with credit reporting accuracy after bankruptcy What Happened ( Complaint Narrative ) I am filing this complaint regarding the inaccurate and legally improper reporting of student loan accounts following my XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy. \n\nI filed a XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy and my case proceeded through the United States Bankruptcy XXXX. While student loans are addressed under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ), that statute is an exception-to-discharge provision, not a reporting authorization and not a presumption of nondischargeability. \n\nLegal and Historical Context Student loans have been provable and includable debts in bankruptcy since the XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX did not restrict dischargeability until the XXXX  XXXX  of XXXX, and even then, student loans were not excluded from bankruptcyonly subject to conditions. \n\nThere is no court document titled Student Loans Excluded from Bankruptcy, and no bankruptcy court furnishes determinations of nondischargeability to credit reporting agencies absent an adversary proceeding and judicial finding. \n\n\n\nInaccuracy and Violations Despite this, the company is reporting my student loans in a manner that is inaccurate, misleading, and legally unsupported, including XXXX or more of the following : Reporting student loans as automatically excluded from bankruptcy Continuing to report balances without a judicial determination Reporting post-bankruptcy negative statuses without lawful verification Treating public record data as proof of nondischargeability Failing to identify any court order, judgment, or adversary proceeding supporting continued reporting The XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX does not report bankruptcy data to credit bureaus, and does not furnish discharge determinations regarding student loans. Any reporting based on assumptions rather than a court judgment is not verifiable. \n\n\n\nApplicable Law Violations This conduct violates : Fair Credit Reporting Act 607 ( b ) Failure to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy Fair Credit Reporting Act 611 ( a ) Failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified CFPB supervisory authority over furnishers Furnishing information without a legal basis or verification An exception to discharge is not the same as a determination of nondischargeability, and credit furnishers are not authorized to make that legal determination. \n\n\n\nWhat I Am Requesting I am requesting that the CFPB require the company to : XXXX. Provide documentary proof of any court determination supporting continued reporting XXXX. Identify the specific document relied upon ( if any ) XXXX. Correct or delete inaccurate reporting that lacks judicial verification XXXX. Cease presumptive reporting of student loan nondischargeability XXXX. Ensure future reporting complies with FCRA accuracy standards If no court judgment exists, continued reporting is unverifiable and must be removed or corrected. \n\n\n\nSupporting Documentation ( Attach if Available ) Bankruptcy petition and schedules Discharge order Credit report pages showing disputed reporting Dispute letters and responses ( if any ) Closing Statement This complaint concerns accuracy, verification, and lawful reporting, not an attempt to evade debt. Credit reporting agencies and furnishers do not have authority to decide bankruptcy dischargeability, and reporting based on assumptions rather than court findings violates XXXX  law. \n\nI respectfully request CFPB intervention.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-09T20:12:35.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"19061","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18609562","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MOHELA","date_received":"2026-01-09T20:06:46.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[") I am filing this <em>complaint</em> <em>regarding</em> the inaccurate and legally <em>improper</em> reporting of student loan accounts following my XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy."]},"sort":[12.91519,"18609562"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14761310","_score":12.827572,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal FCRA, Metro 2, and CARES Act Violation Complaint Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ] Consumer : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Date of Birth : [ XX/XX/XXXX ] Account Number ( Last 4 ) : XXXX Disputes Previously Filed With XXXX Equifax, Experian, TransUnion Date Range Involved : XX/XX/XXXX Present Narrative Summary : This complaint concerns materially inaccurate, misleading, and noncompliant credit reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding an account that was negatively reported despite clear contradictions in the payment records, missing delinquency sequence data, and noncompliance with federal consumer protections under the CARES Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe following violations and inconsistencies form the basis of this complaint : 1. Falsified or Contradictory Payment History XXXX XXXX XXXX reported that payments were being made on the subject credit account from XX/XX/XXXX through early XXXX. However, I maintained a single checking account at that time ( with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and no payments, drafts, or debits were recorded toward this credit card during that period. \n\nDespite this, the account was reported as both current and late during the same span, with no evidence of returned payments, NSF entries, or cancellations. This creates an inherently contradictory reporting record, in violation of : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishing information known to be inaccurate FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to establish or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) : Failing to correct known errors after dispute notification A credit account can not lawfully be reported as both paid and delinquent in the same period, particularly when banking records prove no payment activity occurred. \n\n\n\n2. Skipped Delinquency Tier Metro 2 Format Violation The account was reported as : 30 days late in XXXX XXXX  60 days late in XXXX XXXX 120 days late in XX/XX/XXXX The required XXXX late status was omitted. This breaks the standard delinquency sequence protocol in the Metro 2 Format Guide ( Section 7.2.1 ) and falsely accelerates derogatory reporting, which can materially damage a consumers credit profile. Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), this constitutes inaccurate and misleading reporting.\n\n3. Repeated Charge-Off Reporting Beyond Permissible Format After the initial charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX, the account continues to reflect a charge-off status in subsequent months, including multiple instances in XXXX. This falsely implies multiple or ongoing charge-offs, which is not permitted. \n\nMetro 2 guidance ( Section 6.18 ) mandates that charge-offs be recorded once, in the month they occur, not repeated across multiple months or years. Reporting the same derogatory event multiple times violates : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failure to stop furnishing inaccurate or unverifiable data FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Misleading reporting procedures 4. CARES Act 4021 Violation Improper Handling of COVID-19 Hardship As a consumer who was financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and in good standing prior to XX/XX/XXXX, I was entitled to accommodation under the CARES Act. However, the creditor failed to : Offer or document any accommodation or forbearance Maintain the current status as required by CARES Act 4021 Inform the CRAs that the account was under protected status This omission led to damaging derogatory entries that should not have appeared under federal COVID-19 relief policy.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T09:01:33.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30096","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14761310","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-22T06:18:59.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Formal FCRA, Metro 2, and CARES Act Violation <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ] Consumer : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Date of Birth : [ XX/XX/XXXX ] Account Number ( Last 4 ) : XXXX Disputes Previously Filed With XXXX Equifax, Experian, TransUnion Date Range Involved : XX/XX/XXXX Present <em>Narrative</em> Summary : This <em>complaint</em> concerns materially inaccurate, misleading, and noncompliant credit reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>regarding</em> an account that was negatively"]},"sort":[12.827572,"14761310"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14761308","_score":12.827572,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal FCRA, Metro 2, and CARES Act Violation Complaint Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ] Consumer : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Date of Birth : [ XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ] Account Number ( Last 4 ) : XXXX  Disputes Previously Filed With : XXXX XXXX, TransUnion Date Range Involved : XX/XX/XXXX Present Narrative Summary : This complaint concerns materially inaccurate, misleading, and noncompliant credit reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX regarding an account that was negatively reported despite clear contradictions in the payment records, missing delinquency sequence data, and noncompliance with federal consumer protections under the CARES Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe following violations and inconsistencies form the basis of this complaint : 1. Falsified or Contradictory Payment History XXXX XXXX XXXX reported that payments were being made on the subject credit account from XX/XX/XXXX through early XXXX. However, I maintained a single checking account at that time ( with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and no payments, drafts, or debits were recorded toward this credit card during that period. \n\nDespite this, the account was reported as both current and late during the same span, with no evidence of returned payments, NSF entries, or cancellations. This creates an inherently contradictory reporting record, in violation of : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishing information known to be inaccurate FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to establish or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) : Failing to correct known errors after dispute notification A credit account can not lawfully be reported as both paid and delinquent in the same period, particularly when banking records prove no payment activity occurred. \n\n\n\n2. Skipped Delinquency Tier Metro 2 Format Violation The account was reported as : 30 days late in XXXX XXXX  60 days late in XXXX XXXX 120 days late in XX/XX/XXXX The required XXXX late status was omitted. This breaks the standard delinquency sequence protocol in the Metro 2 Format Guide ( Section 7.2.1 ) and falsely accelerates derogatory reporting, which can materially damage a consumers credit profile. Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), this constitutes inaccurate and misleading reporting.\n\n3. Repeated Charge-Off Reporting Beyond Permissible Format After the initial charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX, the account continues to reflect a charge-off status in subsequent months, including multiple instances in XXXX. This falsely implies multiple or ongoing charge-offs, which is not permitted. \n\nMetro 2 guidance ( Section 6.18 ) mandates that charge-offs be recorded once, in the month they occur, not repeated across multiple months or years. Reporting the same derogatory event multiple times violates : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failure to stop furnishing inaccurate or unverifiable data FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Misleading reporting procedures 4. CARES Act 4021 Violation Improper Handling of COVID-19 Hardship As a consumer who was financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and in good standing prior to XX/XX/XXXX, I was entitled to accommodation under the CARES Act. However, the creditor failed to : Offer or document any accommodation or forbearance Maintain the current status as required by CARES Act 4021 Inform the CRAs that the account was under protected status This omission led to damaging derogatory entries that should not have appeared under federal COVID-19 relief policy.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T08:01:22.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30096","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14761308","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-22T06:18:59.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Formal FCRA, Metro 2, and CARES Act Violation <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ] Consumer : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Date of Birth : [ XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ] Account Number ( Last 4 ) : XXXX  Disputes Previously Filed With : XXXX XXXX, TransUnion Date Range Involved : XX/XX/XXXX Present <em>Narrative</em> Summary : This <em>complaint</em> concerns materially inaccurate, misleading, and noncompliant credit reporting by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX <em>regarding</em> an account that was negatively reported"]},"sort":[12.827572,"14761308"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14761133","_score":12.827572,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal FCRA, XXXX XXXX, and CARES Act Violation Complaint Inaccurate Credit Reporting by [ Bank of America ] Consumer : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Date of Birth : [ XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ] Account Number ( Last 4 ) : XXXX Disputes Previously Filed With : XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Range Involved : XX/XX/XXXX Present Narrative Summary : This complaint concerns materially inaccurate, misleading, and noncompliant credit reporting by Bank of America regarding an account that was negatively reported despite clear contradictions in the payment records, missing delinquency sequence data, and noncompliance with federal consumer protections under the CARES Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe following violations and inconsistencies form the basis of this complaint : 1. Falsified or Contradictory Payment History Bank of America reported that payments were being made on the subject credit account from XX/XX/XXXX through early XXXX. However, I maintained a single checking account at that time ( with Bank of America ), and no payments, drafts, or debits were recorded toward this credit card during that period. \n\nDespite this, the account was reported as both current and late during the same span, with no evidence of returned payments, NSF entries, or cancellations. This creates an inherently contradictory reporting record, in violation of : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishing information known to be inaccurate FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to establish or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) : Failing to correct known errors after dispute notification A credit account can not lawfully be reported as both paid and delinquent in the same period, particularly when banking records prove no payment activity occurred. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Format Violation The account was reported as : 30 days late in XXXX XXXX 60 days late in XXXX XXXX 120 days late in XX/XX/XXXX The required 90-day late status was omitted. This breaks the standard delinquency sequence protocol in the XXXX XXXX Format Guide ( Section 7.2.1 ) and falsely accelerates derogatory reporting, which can materially damage a consumers credit profile. Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), this constitutes inaccurate and misleading reporting. \n\n\n\n3. Repeated Charge-Off Reporting Beyond Permissible Format After the initial charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX, the account continues to reflect a charge-off status in subsequent months, including multiple instances in XXXX. This falsely implies multiple or ongoing charge-offs, which is not permitted. \n\nXXXX XXXX guidance ( Section 6.18 ) mandates that charge-offs be recorded once, in the month they occur, not repeated across multiple months or years. Reporting the same derogatory event multiple times violates : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failure to stop furnishing inaccurate or unverifiable data FCRA 1681XXXX ( b ) : Misleading reporting procedures 4. CARES Act 4021 Violation Improper Handling of COVID-19 Hardship As a consumer who was financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and in good standing prior to XX/XX/XXXX, I was entitled to accommodation under the CARES Act. However, the creditor failed to : Offer or document any accommodation or forbearance Maintain the current status as required by CARES Act 4021 Inform the CRAs that the account was under protected status This omission led to damaging derogatory entries that should not have appeared under federal COVID-19 relief policy.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T08:00:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30096","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14761133","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-07-22T06:03:41.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Formal FCRA, XXXX XXXX, and CARES Act Violation <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Credit Reporting by [ Bank of America ] Consumer : [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Date of Birth : [ XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ] Account Number ( Last 4 ) : XXXX Disputes Previously Filed With : XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Range Involved : XX/XX/XXXX Present <em>Narrative</em> Summary : This <em>complaint</em> concerns materially inaccurate, misleading, and noncompliant credit reporting by Bank of America <em>regarding</em> an account that was negatively reported despite"]},"sort":[12.827572,"14761133"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14399196","_score":12.315266,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary. \nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation related to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute, as required under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a re-dispute.\n\nSubject : Complaint Against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for FCRA Violations Improper Verification of a Business Loan Reported as Consumer Debt by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation per 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : This complaint is directed against the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for willfully and negligently violating multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my dispute regarding a misreported tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nDespite receiving a formal dispute and supporting evidence clearly demonstrating that the reported account is a business-purpose loan and therefore not subject to consumer credit reporting all three CRAs improperly marked the account as verified without obtaining or reviewing any documentation that meets FCRA standards XXXX This constitutes a failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 1681i, among other violations.\n\nWhile the agreement includes my name as a borrower and contains an electronic signature, it explicitly states the following : Page 1, Paragraph 8 : By affixing your electronic signature to this Consent and the BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT, you are agreeing to all of its terms and conditions. \nPage 2 ( Loan Purpose Clause ) : The loan proceeds will not be used for any personal, family, household, or consumer purpose.\n\nPage 3 ( Borrower Representation ) : I promise and represent that I will use the proceeds of the loan for business purposes and not for personal, family, or household purposes.\n\nThese provisions confirm that the loan is strictly for business-purpose in nature and is not a consumer credit obligation under FCRA 603 ( d ). My signature does not establish personal liability, and no personal guarantee or supporting document has been presented. Therefore, reporting this loan on my personal credit report is improper, and the CRAs verification of this account is invalid and misleading under the FCRA. \nMy inclusion in the agreement does not establish personal liability or consumer credit intent, and no signed personal guarantee or other documentation has been presented to support such a claim. \nAccordingly, this account is misclassified, the CRAs continued reporting is unlawful, and their prior verification of the account is both invalid and misleading under the FCRA. \n\nFailure of Verification Process Only Two Possibilities, Both Unlawful : There are only two plausible ways in which the credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion could have verified or updated the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account following my dispute : 1. Reliance on e-OSCAR System Checkbox Responses : If the CRAs relied solely on automated, coded responses submitted by the furnisher through the e-OSCAR system without reviewing actual documentation or evidence then the CRAs failed to conduct a proper reinvestigation, in direct violation of FCRA 1681i. Such blind reliance on furnisher affirmations without validation is negligent, unlawful, and constitutes a willful disregard for consumer rights.\n\nSee Exhibit B1 A clear example is Equifaxs own admission in its dispute results report dated XX/XX/year>. The CRA did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, but instead deferred entirely to the furnishers assertions without independently reviewing or validating whether the account meets the legal definition of a consumer credit obligation. This constitutes a direct violation of FCRA 1681i and highlights the inherent inadequacy of the e-OSCAR dispute system when used as a substitute for meaningful investigation.\n\n2. Review of Furnisher Documentation ( As Sent to CFPB ) : Alternatively, if the CRAs received the same documentation that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in response to my CFPB complaint, then one of two additional violations occurred : o Either the CRAs chose not to use or review these documents at all, which constitutes gross negligence ; o Or the CRAs reviewed the documentation and willfully ignored clear evidence that the loan is a business-purpose obligation not subject to consumer credit reporting under FCRA 603 ( d ) and yet verified the account anyway. This would amount to a willful violation of FCRA, potentially triggering damages under 616 and 617.\n\nIn either scenario, the CRAs failed their legal duty to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and lawful basis of the information reported under FCRA 1681i, 1681e ( b ), and 1681g. \n\nAs of this filing, Experian has not yet issued its reinvestigation results, despite having received my dispute dated XX/XX/year>. This delay, coupled with the parallel responses from Equifax and TransUnion both of which verified the account without lawful documentation raises serious concern that Experian may likewise rely on improper, automated verification practices in violation of FCRA 1681i.\n\nIn addition, all three CRAs have failed to provide the required disclosures regarding the reinvestigation outcome, including : The method of verification ; The documentation or evidence reviewed ; The name and contact information of the verifying party.\n\nIf Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian can not or will not provide the requested verification documentation, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account from all of my credit files, in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\nKey Violations Include : 1. 1681i Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation The CRAs verified the account based on Spring Oaks submission, which included no signed consumer agreement, no proof of personal liability, and a loan agreement clearly designated for business use. \n2. 1681e ( b ) / 607 ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy The CRAs allowed inaccurate information to remain on my consumer report, despite clear documentation that this was a business-purpose loan.\n\n3. 1681g / 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to Provide Verification Method and Documentation None of the CRAs have disclosed how the account was verified or provided any supporting documentation justifying its continued reporting.\n\n4. 1681b No Permissible Purpose Reporting a business-purpose account on a personal credit report, without any consumer authorization or liability, lacks a permissible purpose under the FCRA.\n\nAny attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is particularly concerning in light of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  own response, which suggests that the verification processes used by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion may be inadequate and potentially misleading.\n\nThis submission also constitutes : 1. A formal legal notification to all three credit bureaus, along with a lawful request for all information used in the verification process ; 2. A legal notice of intent to escalate this matter through formal litigation if not resolved. \n\nIf the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not permanently deleted from all three of my credit reports within XXXX calendar days of this complaint, and the CRAs continue to assume legal liability by reporting this account, I will : File suit in small claims or civil court under FCRA XXXX and XXXX ; Notify the New York Attorney General, FTC, and other relevant regulatory bodies ; Publicly document this complaint and all related communications as part of my legal evidence record. \nHowever, if the CRAs act in good faith and permanently delete the account within XXXX calendar days, I will consider the matter fully resolved and take no further action. \n\nEvidence Submitted Separately Includes : Annotated copy of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX loan agreement clearly states the funds are for business purposes only and not for personal, family, or household use, excluding it from consumer credit reporting under FCRA XXXX ( d ). There is no personal guarantee and no signed consumer agreement. \nSnapshot of the credit bureau dispute results, showing the account was marked as verified despite clear evidence it is a business loan.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-01T02:22:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14399196","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-01T02:10:12.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : <em>Complaint</em> Against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for FCRA Violations <em>Improper</em> Verification of a Business Loan Reported as Consumer Debt by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation per 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) <em>Narrative</em> : This <em>complaint</em> is directed against the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for willfully and negligently violating multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in"]},"sort":[12.315266,"14399196"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13902008","_score":12.124102,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX, with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  as the original creditor. The account appears on my TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax credit reports and is being reported with conflicting, incomplete, and misleading information, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nSpecific Issues : Conflicting account open dates between TransUnion and the other bureaus. \n\nAccount is actively disputed, but still being reported as Collection/Chargeoff without any proof of validation or resolution. \n\nNo past due amount, payment history, or clear resolution outcome is provided. \n\nEach bureau includes a different comment, creating an inconsistent account narrative.\n\nBalance is identical to high credit, but not clearly validated or explained.\n\nViolations : FCRA 607 ( b ) Inaccurate and conflicting data FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Reporting of incomplete and inaccurate info FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to correct, update, or verify details FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Improper handling of disputed data FCRA 611 ( a ) Unverified disputes must result in deletion FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Misleading or false credit reporting Summary of Violations Law Violation FCRA 607 ( b ) Inaccurate open dates and inconsistent comments FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Reporting inaccurate or incomplete information FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to update account status and data fields FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Derogatory reporting during unresolved dispute FCRA 611 ( a ) Unverified disputed items must be deleted FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Misleading representation of collection status Inaccuracies & Violations XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Conflicting Date Opened Across Bureaus TransUnion : XX/XX/year> Experian & Equifax : XX/XX/year> Violation : FCRA 607 ( b ) Must ensure maximum possible accuracy Impact : Inconsistent account open dates cause confusion in aging the debt, which affects scoring and dispute windows.\n\n2. Account Is in Dispute Yet Still Reporting as Collection/Chargeoff All three bureaus show comments indicating the account is disputed.\n\nStill marked Collection/Chargeoff with no validation.\n\nViolation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Furnishers must clearly mark accounts as disputed and not continue derogatory updates unless validated FCRA 611 ( a ) Unverified accounts must be removed within 30 days Impact : Continued derogatory reporting during an unresolved dispute harms the consumer 's profile and violates law.\n\n3. No Payment History or Past Due Details Past Due : Blank Monthly Payment : Not listed Payment history : No detail Violation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Information must be complete and accurate Impact : Reporting a charge-off without full payment details is considered misleading and non-compliant.\n\n4. Comments Differ Among Bureaus TransUnion : \" Disputed by consumer, meets FCRA requirements '' Experian : \" Customer disputed account reported by subscriber '' Equifax : \" Consumer disputes this account information. Subject has not satisfied debt. '' Violation : FCRA 607 ( b ) Narrative must be consistent across all CRAs Impact : Contradictory statements raise red flags regarding the verification process and may bias future credit decisions.\n\n5. Balance = High Credit = {$430.00} Normally acceptable, but in context of collection reporting and dispute, this may reflect lack of proper update.\n\nPotential Violation ( if not updated post-resolution ) : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Must update to reflect payments or settlement status if applicable Impact : If the account was resolved or settled in any form, it can not lawfully remain at full balance without verification.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-04T20:13:17.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33844","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13902008","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-04T19:57:46.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> has not satisfied debt. '' Violation : FCRA 607 ( b ) <em>Narrative</em> must be consistent across all CRAs Impact : Contradictory statements raise red flags <em>regarding</em> the verification process and may bias future credit decisions.\n\n5. Balance = High Credit = {$430.00} Normally acceptable, but in context of collection reporting and dispute, this may reflect lack of proper update."],"issue":["<em>Improper</em> use of your report"]},"sort":[12.124102,"13902008"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13901967","_score":12.124102,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX, with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  as the original creditor. The account appears on my TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax credit reports and is being reported with conflicting, incomplete, and misleading information, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nSpecific Issues : Conflicting account open dates between TransUnion and the other bureaus. \n\nAccount is actively disputed, but still being reported as Collection/Chargeoff without any proof of validation or resolution. \n\nNo past due amount, payment history, or clear resolution outcome is provided. \n\nEach bureau includes a different comment, creating an inconsistent account narrative.\n\nBalance is identical to high credit, but not clearly validated or explained.\n\nViolations : FCRA 607 ( b ) Inaccurate and conflicting data FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Reporting of incomplete and inaccurate info FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to correct, update, or verify details FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Improper handling of disputed data FCRA 611 ( a ) Unverified disputes must result in deletion FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Misleading or false credit reporting Summary of Violations Law Violation FCRA 607 ( b ) Inaccurate open dates and inconsistent comments FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Reporting inaccurate or incomplete information FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to update account status and data fields FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Derogatory reporting during unresolved dispute FCRA 611 ( a ) Unverified disputed items must be deleted FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Misleading representation of collection status Inaccuracies & Violations XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Conflicting Date Opened Across Bureaus TransUnion : XX/XX/year> Experian & Equifax : XX/XX/year> Violation : FCRA 607 ( b ) Must ensure maximum possible accuracy Impact : Inconsistent account open dates cause confusion in aging the debt, which affects scoring and dispute windows.\n\n2. Account Is in Dispute Yet Still Reporting as Collection/Chargeoff All three bureaus show comments indicating the account is disputed.\n\nStill marked Collection/Chargeoff with no validation.\n\nViolation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Furnishers must clearly mark accounts as disputed and not continue derogatory updates unless validated FCRA 611 ( a ) Unverified accounts must be removed within 30 days Impact : Continued derogatory reporting during an unresolved dispute harms the consumer 's profile and violates law.\n\n3. No Payment History or Past Due Details Past Due : Blank Monthly Payment : Not listed Payment history : No detail Violation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Information must be complete and accurate Impact : Reporting a charge-off without full payment details is considered misleading and non-compliant.\n\n4. Comments Differ Among Bureaus TransUnion : \" Disputed by consumer, meets FCRA requirements '' Experian : \" Customer disputed account reported by subscriber '' Equifax : \" Consumer disputes this account information. Subject has not satisfied debt. '' Violation : FCRA 607 ( b ) Narrative must be consistent across all CRAs Impact : Contradictory statements raise red flags regarding the verification process and may bias future credit decisions.\n\n5. Balance = High Credit = {$430.00} Normally acceptable, but in context of collection reporting and dispute, this may reflect lack of proper update.\n\nPotential Violation ( if not updated post-resolution ) : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) Must update to reflect payments or settlement status if applicable Impact : If the account was resolved or settled in any form, it can not lawfully remain at full balance without verification.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-04T20:13:21.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33844","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13901967","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-04T20:12:49.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> has not satisfied debt. '' Violation : FCRA 607 ( b ) <em>Narrative</em> must be consistent across all CRAs Impact : Contradictory statements raise red flags <em>regarding</em> the verification process and may bias future credit decisions.\n\n5. Balance = High Credit = {$430.00} Normally acceptable, but in context of collection reporting and dispute, this may reflect lack of proper update."],"issue":["<em>Improper</em> use of your report"]},"sort":[12.124102,"13901967"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17880283","_score":11.166631,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Servicer Refusal to Provide Mandatory Borrower Records and Interference with Congressional Inquiry Related Prior CFPB Case XXXX : XXXX ; XXXX ; XXXX Duration of Unresolved Issues : Nearly XXXX full calendar year since the original complaint Narrative : I am filing this complaint because Aidvantage ( Maximus Federal Services ) continues to violate federal student loan servicing requirements by refusing to provide the standard borrower account records to which I am legally entitled. Across nearly a full year and multiple prior CFPB complaintsincluding XXXX IDs XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX has repeatedly failed to supply complete transaction histories, promissory notes, communication logs, and other required documentation. \n\nAidvantage is now asserting that it will not provide these documents due to pending litigation. This rationale has no basis in the Higher Education Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, or their federal servicing contract. Litigation does not suspend a servicers obligation to furnish borrower records upon request, nor does it convert standard borrower access rights into discovery. Their position reflects a fundamental misunderstandingor, more accurately, a misuseof their statutory duties. \n\n1. Improper Use of Litigation as a Justification to Withhold Records Aidvantages refusal to provide my records solely due to ongoing litigation directly contradicts federal regulations, including XXXX C.F.R. XXXX and XXXX, which require accurate recordkeeping and timely provision of borrower account information. They have provided no legal authority authorizing them to suspend servicing obligations toward a borrower who is self-represented. Their refusal undermines both transparency and accuracy in account servicing. \n\n2. Interference With a Congressional Inquiry The office of Congressman Brad Schneider ( Illinois ' 10th District ) submitted a congressional inquiry regarding my loan servicing concerns. Aidvantage again refused to provide the required information and invoked litigation as justification for not responding substantively. A federal loan servicer may not obstruct or ignore congressional oversight, and litigation does not exempt them from providing information to Congress or to the borrower. \n\nXXXX. Ongoing Pattern of Noncompliance Over an Entire Year For nearly a year, Aidvantage has demonstrated a pattern of regulatory noncompliance. This includes inconsistent account reporting, unexplained interest behaviors, incomplete documentation, and now an asserted refusal to provide any records whatsoever. Each CFPB complaint has resulted in partial or incomplete responses, with the underlying issues unresolved. \n\nAs a matter of federal servicing law and consumer protection, a servicer may not correct its own errors by retroactively adding interest or otherwise increasing a borrowers balance : capitalization and interest charges must follow the specific events and conditions permitted under the Higher Education Act and its regulations ( e.g., 34 C.F.R. 685.202 on capitalization events ), and any practice that causes avoidable injury to the borrower without countervailing benefit is prohibited as an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 55315536 ; more broadly, basic contract and equity principles do not permit a party to benefit from its own wrongdoing.\n\nRelief Requested I am not asking the CFPB to intervene in or opine on my litigation. \nI am requesting that the CFPB require Aidvantage to : 1. Immediately provide all borrower records mandated under federal law, including my full transaction history, promissory notes, servicing logs, and related documents.\n\n2. Explicitly state the legal rationaleincluding regulatory or statutory authoritythey believe permits them to withhold required borrower records due to litigation.\n\n3. Explain their legal basis for refusing to respond fully to the congressional inquiry submitted by the office of Congressman Brad Schneider ( IL-10 ), and clarify how such refusal aligns with their contractual duties as a federal servicer. \n\nThese requests are limited to enforcing existing borrower rights and ensuring regulatory compliance. Litigation does not eliminate a servicers obligations, and Aidvantage should be required to articulate the legal authority they believe justifies their actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-09T15:48:26.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"60076","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17880283","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-09T15:35:30.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : Servicer Refusal to Provide Mandatory Borrower Records and Interference with Congressional Inquiry Related Prior CFPB Case XXXX : XXXX ; XXXX ; XXXX Duration of Unresolved Issues : Nearly XXXX full calendar year since the original <em>complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> because Aidvantage ( Maximus Federal Services ) continues to violate federal student loan servicing requirements by refusing to provide the standard borrower account records to which I am legally entitled."]},"sort":[11.166631,"17880283"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15582402","_score":11.139113,"_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 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."]},"sort":[11.139113,"15582402"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12509288","_score":9.831023,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Rebuttal to Aidvantages Misclassification and Failure to Address CFPB Complaint ID XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX Account Number : XXXX To : Aidvantage Dispute Resolution Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX XXXX : XXXX, CFPB, FTC Subject : Formal Response to Aidvantage Misclassification of My Student Loan & Failure to Address CFPB Complaint ID XXXX To Aidvantage Dispute Resolution Department, This letter serves as a formal rebuttal and legal demand in response to Aidvantages XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX  EST response to CFPB Complaint ID XXXX. Aidvantages response is legally insufficient, factually inaccurate, and in noncompliance with federal and D.C. consumer protection laws. \nRather than addressing the core issuethe wrongful classification of my student loan account as associated with an identity theft or forgery dispute, despite the fact that I never initiated or authorized such a disputeAidvantage engaged in misdirection, false statements, and procedural misrepresentations. \nAidvantage deflected responsibility by referencing an unrelated CFPB complaint against XXXX, made false claims regarding attempted contact, and unlawfully shifted the burden onto me to correct its own mistake. \nAttached to this notice is my sworn and notarized Affidavit of Truth ( AOT ), which serves as a master legal record supporting my disputes, along with my FTC Fraud Report, which confirms that I never submitted an identity theft or forgery dispute related to my student loan account. These documents are attached as evidence of Aidvantages failure to comply with FCRA, CFPA, and D.C. CPPA requirements. Aidvantage is legally required to take immediate corrective action and can not shift the responsibility onto me to fix their own error.\n\nI. Setting the Record Straight : Aidvantage 's False Narrative and Failure to Investigate Aidvantages response to CFPB Complaint ID XXXX is not only factually inaccurate but also fails to address the actual complaint I filed against them. Instead of responding to my direct allegations of wrongful misclassification, failure to disclose evidence, and failure to conduct a proper investigation, Aidvantage deliberately misdirected the conversation by referencing an unrelated complaint against XXXX. \n1. Aidvantage wrongly cites CFPB Complaint ID XXXX, which was a complaint filed against XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXnot against Aidvantage. \no This complaint included no claim of identity theft and had nothing to do with Aidvantages internal handling of disputes. \no The intent of CFPB Complaint ID XXXX was solely to require XXXX to correct or remove inaccurate account details on my Aidvantage accounts. \no Instead of addressing the actual complaint against Aidvantage ( CFPB Complaint ID XXXX ), Aidvantage deliberately misdirected its response. \n2. Aidvantage failed to respond to CFPB Complaint ID XXXX, which explicitly denied any claim of identity theft or forgery on my student loan. \no The sole purpose of my complaint was to hold Aidvantage accountable for wrongfully classifying my account under identity theft procedures without any basis or authorization. \no Aidvantage ignored my demand for proof of who initiated this false claim, failed to disclose supporting documentation, and instead provided an irrelevant response. \n3. Aidvantage falsely claims they attempted to contact me before classifying my account as fraud-related, yet they have provided no evidence of such outreach.\n\no Aidvantage has provided no evidence of any outreach, such as call logs, emails, letters, or records. \no If Aidvantage can not produce verifiable proof that I was contacted or that I submitted an identity theft dispute, then their actions constitute a violation of multiple federal and D.C. consumer protection laws.\n\n4. Aidvantage improperly shifts the burden onto me to correct their own error instead of taking responsibility for their mistake.\n\no Aidvantage states : \" If you are not disputing the student loans, you can write a letter to Aidvantage, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX to remove the fraud claim narrative from your account. '' o This statement is both legally and procedurally improper. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), furnishers such as Aidvantage are required to ensure the accuracy of the information they report and must correct errors without placing the burden on the consumer. \no It is not my responsibility to request that a fraud claim be removed when I never initiated or authorized one in the first place. Aidvantages response implies that I must take additional steps to fix their wrongful designation, which is a clear violation of my consumer rights.\n\n5. Aidvantages response creates an undue burden and potential harm to me as a consumer.\n\no Having my account falsely labeled as part of an identity theft claim can result in increased scrutiny, restrictions, or unnecessary verification requirements that could impact my ability to access student loan services. \no If this misclassification has been reported to any credit bureaus, it may have adverse effects on my credit profile, requiring even further dispute processes to undo Aidvantages mistake.\n\no Aidvantages failure to take proactive corrective action violates Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices that obstruct consumers from resolving disputes efficiently.\n\nBy shifting the responsibility onto me to correct their own mistake rather than taking immediate corrective action, Aidvantage is failing in its legal obligations and worsening the harm caused by their misclassification. Their failure to provide proof of any valid basis for the fraud claim and their refusal to remove it without additional consumer intervention creates significant regulatory, legal, and consumer protection concerns. \nII. Legal Violations Committed by Aidvantage A. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Violations 1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) o Aidvantage was required to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving a dispute regarding my account.\n\no Instead, they wrongfully labeled my account as fraud-related without verifying whether a fraud claim had actually been submitted by me. \n2. Providing False or Inaccurate Information to a Credit Bureau 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o Furnishers must not knowingly provide false or inaccurate information to a credit reporting agency.\n\no Aidvantage reported my account as being subject to an identity theft dispute without evidence, misrepresenting my consumer record. \n3. Failure to Provide Supporting Documentation 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) o I formally requested that Aidvantage provide : The source of the identity theft claim The authorization of the claim Correspondence records or communication logs related to this claim o Aidvantage has failed to produce any of these documents, violating their obligation under the FCRA.\n\nB. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ) 1. Unfair Business Practice Shifting the Burden to the Consumer o Aidvantage is placing an undue burden on me to correct their own mistake, rather than taking proactive steps to fix the inaccurate fraud classification that they wrongly applied to my account. \no Under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ( 1 ), a business practice is unfair if it causes substantial harm to consumers, is not reasonably avoidable, and lacks countervailing benefits.\n\no In this case, Aidvantages failure to properly verify identity theft claims before applying a fraud designation directly harms me by : Complicating my ability to manage my student loan account Forcing me to submit unnecessary paperwork to correct an error I did not cause Potentially triggering unnecessary restrictions, delays, or adverse credit consequences o Consumers should not be required to file additional disputes to remove inaccurate designations that the furnisher wrongly placed on their account.\n\no Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), Aidvantage is legally required to maintain and furnish accurate information. Their failure to remove an incorrect fraud claim unless I take additional steps violates both the FCRA and CFPAs prohibition on unfair practices. \n2. Deceptive Representation of a Consumer Complaint o Aidvantage misrepresented the nature of its actions and misled me and federal regulators by : Claiming they acted based on my XXXX dispute when no fraud claim was filed in that dispute. \nClaiming they attempted to contact me before classifying my account as fraud-relatedyet providing no proof of such outreach. \no 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ) prohibits deceptive acts or practices, which occur when a company : Provides misleading or false information XXXX necessary disclosures that affect consumer decisions Fails to correct known inaccuracies o Here, Aidvantages misrepresentation of my dispute and failure to correct an error it caused constitute clear violations of 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). \nC. Washington, D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( CPPA ) Violations 1. Material Misrepresentation of a Consumer Transaction XXXX XXXX XXXX ( e ) o Aidvantage falsely represented that they handled my CFPB complaint appropriately, when in reality, they failed to address the actual dispute ( ID XXXX ) and instead deflected to an unrelated complaint against XXXX. \no Mischaracterizing my dispute as an identity theft claim constitutes a deceptive trade practice under D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( XXXX ), which prohibits businesses from misrepresenting a material fact that would affect a consumers decision-making process. \no Additionally, under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ), furnishers must provide clear, accurate explanations regarding disputes. By evading the core issues of my complaint, Aidvantage engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct.\n\n2. Failure to Perform a Legal Duty D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( f ) o Aidvantage had a legal obligation to verify dispute details before misclassifying my account. Their failure to ensure the fraud classification was justified means they violated their duty to furnish only accurate and complete information.\n\no Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), furnishers must use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\no Under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), furnishers must investigate and correct errors upon notice of a dispute.\n\no Aidvantages refusal to remove the false fraud designation without requiring me to take additional steps is an outright failure to meet these obligations.\n\no Their failure to provide proof of their actions, verify the legitimacy of the fraud claim, or disclose the source of the misclassification violates D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( f ), which prohibits businesses from failing to perform a duty required by law.\n\nLegal Summary of Violations by Aidvantage Federal Violations FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) : Furnishers must not report inaccurate information.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) : Furnishers must provide dispute-related documents upon request.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Furnishers must ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nCFPA 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) : Unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices ( UDAAP ).\n\nWashington, D.C. Violations D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( e ) : Misrepresentation of a material fact in consumer transactions.\n\nD.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( f ) : Failure to perform a legal duty required by law.\n\nAidvantages response not only fails to comply with federal and D.C. laws but also actively harms me as a consumer. Their attempt to shift the burden onto me rather than correcting their own error demonstrates a pattern of deceptive business practices that require regulatory intervention. \nIII. Legal Demands for Immediate Corrective Actions To prevent regulatory escalation and legal exposure, I formally demand that Aidvantage comply with the following within 30 business days : 1. Immediate Removal of the Fraud Designation on My Account o Aidvantage must confirm in writing that they have removed all fraud-related designations on my student loan records.\n\n2. Provide Written Confirmation That No Adverse Credit Reporting Resulted o If any negative impact to my credit report resulted from this false fraud claim, Aidvantage must submit immediate corrections to XXXX. \n3. Disclose the Full Investigation Record & Internal Documentation o Aidvantage must provide : The name of the individual or entity that initiated the fraud designation.\n\nAny internal notes, emails, or communications related to this designation. \nAny correspondence between Aidvantage and XXXX related to this matter. \n4. Provide a Formal Explanation as to Why CFPB Complaint ID XXXX Was Ignored o Aidvantage must issue a response directly addressing the claims in CFPB Complaint ID XXXX, not an unrelated dispute. \nIV. Notice of Regulatory and Legal Action if Aidvantage Fails to Comply If Aidvantage fails to take immediate corrective actions, I will escalate the matter as follows : 1. File a New CFPB Complaint for UDAAP Violations o I will submit a new complaint detailing : Aidvantages misclassification of my student loan Their failure to investigate the dispute properly Their deceptive misrepresentation of my complaint 2. Report Aidvantage to the Washington, D.C. Attorney General for CPPA Violations o Aidvantages deceptive and unfair trade practices violate D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( e ) & ( f ). \n3. Initiate Legal Action for FCRA and CFPA Violations o Aidvantage is now on formal notice that I reserve the right to pursue legal action under : 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( FCRA Willful Noncompliance ) 15 U.S.C. 1681o ( FCRA Negligent Noncompliance ) 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( CFPA UDAAP Violations ) D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ( e ) - ( f ) ( Deceptive & Unfair Practices ) Aidvantage has 30 business days to correct this error and provide a formal response. If they fail to comply, I will escalate to regulatory agencies and explore litigation options.\n\nV. Attached as Evidence The following documents are attached as supporting evidence of Aidvantages fraudulent misclassification, failure to conduct a proper investigation, and noncompliance with federal and D.C. consumer protection laws : Sworn and Notarized Affidavit of Truth ( AOT ) : A master legal record establishing the foundation for my disputes and outlining systemic issues with Aidvantages handling of my account.\n\nCFPB Complaint ID XXXX : A complaint filed against XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, which Aidvantage improperly cited in its response, despite having no connection to the identity theft misclassification on my student loan account. \nCFPB Complaint ID XXXX : The complaint specifically filed against Aidvantage regarding its fraudulent identity theft classification, to which Aidvantage responded XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX  EST with an inadequate and misleading response. \nFTC Fraud Report ID XXXX : A report filed with the Federal Trade Commission detailing Aidvantages misrepresentation, improper burden-shifting, and failure to comply with consumer protection laws. \nThese documents serve as critical evidence of Aidvantages misconduct and establish the need for regulatory intervention.\n\nVI. Final Notice to Aidvantage Aidvantages mischaracterization of my dispute ( CFPB Complaint ID XXXX ) and failure to provide evidence demonstrates a clear violation of federal and state consumer protection laws. \nThis is Aidvantages final opportunity to correct its misconduct before regulatory escalation. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-17T21:29:25.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"20008","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12509288","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-17T21:19:50.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> ID XXXX : A <em>complaint</em> filed against XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, which Aidvantage <em>improperly</em> cited in its response, despite having no connection to the identity theft misclassification on my student loan account. \nCFPB <em>Complaint</em> ID XXXX : The <em>complaint</em> specifically filed against Aidvantage <em>regarding</em> its fraudulent identity theft classification, to which Aidvantage responded XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX  EST with an inadequate and misleading response."]},"sort":[9.831023,"12509288"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18257143","_score":9.805238,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"FAX COVER SHEET FAX : XXXX FROM : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois XXXX XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX TO : Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX TOTAL PAGES ( Including Cover ) : XXXX RE : RESPA / Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) Rebuttal Loan Servicer : NewRez LLC XXXX Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois MESSAGE Please find attached a formal rebuttal to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicings correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, addressing ongoing noncompliance with 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 and Shellpoints improper conditioning of its statutory duties. \n\nThis fax is transmitted to preserve the record, document continued noncompliance, and ensure proper receipt by the XXXX Department. \n\nThis matter is time-sensitive. \nPlease acknowledge receipt by email. \n\nSENT BY : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX To : SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING XXXX DEPARTMENT XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX FAX : XXXX RESPA QWR REBUTTAL SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING Subject : CFPB Rebuttal Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing : Pattern of Contradictory and Misleading Responses ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX Team Re XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Servicer : NewRez LLC XXXX Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois To Whom It May Concern XXXX This submission is a formal rebuttal to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicings most recent response dated XX/XX/XXXX, authored by XXXX XXXX, XXXX Department, and to Shellpoints XXXX written responses submitted to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation ( IDFPR ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nShellpoints responses, taken together, demonstrate a pattern of contradictory factual assertions, selective disclosures, and evasive disclaimers, all issued by the same compliance agent despite repeated notice of document defects and inconsistencies. These defects were never cured prior to foreclosure and sheriffs sale. \n\n\nI. Same Compliance Agent, Repeated After Notice All XXXX responses ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) were authored or affirmed by XXXX XXXX on behalf of Shellpoints XXXX Department. As a result : Shellpoint can not claim lack of knowledge, clerical error, or misunderstanding. \nRepetition of disputed statements after notice constitutes knowing adoption of those statements. \nThis establishes a pattern, not an isolated mistake. \n\nXXXX. Contradictory and Misleading Origination Assertions In the XX/XX/XXXX, response, Shellpoint states : This loan originated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \nHowever, Shellpoint has been repeatedly notified that : There are multiple mortgage versions associated with this loan ; XXXX version was reprinted and recorded after the Note ; The Note and Mortgage do not match ; The XX/XX/XXXX, mortgage is the disputed and altered instrument. \nShellpoints continued assertion of a single undisputed origination datewithout addressing the existence of conflicting instrumentsmisrepresents the record and improperly adopts a contested document as controlling. \n\nXXXX. Admission of a Fatal NoteMortgage Discrepancy Shellpoint again admits in its XX/XX/XXXX response : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and you signed the Mortgage However, XXXX XXXX name does not appear on the Note. \nThis is not explanatory ; it is an admission that : The Mortgage encumbers the property using a party not obligated on the debt ; The Note and Mortgage are nonconforming ; Foreclosure proceeded on mismatched collateral documents. \nNone of Shellpoints responses reconcile this defect, despite acknowledging it across multiple submissions. \n\nXXXX. Improper Reliance on QWR Scope to Avoid Substantive Answers Across its responses, Shellpoint repeatedly claims that inquiries regarding origination, document integrity, or chain of title fall outside the scope of a Qualified Written Request ( QWR ). \nThis position is misapplied where : The servicer is actively enforcing the loan ; The servicer is relying on specific documents to collect payments and foreclose ; The borrower disputes the accuracy of servicing records and instruments used to service the loan. \nShellpoint can not simultaneously enforce disputed documents and disclaim responsibility for their accuracy. \nSince XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint has failed to produce the servicing records expressly requested in my Qualified Written Requests under 12 C.F.R. 1024.351024.36, including but not limited to the full life-of-loan payment and escrow ledgers ; master servicing and sub-servicer transaction logs ; investor, trust, and remittance ledgers identifying all entities receiving or crediting payments ; the complete collateral file and identification of the current document custodian ; all servicing transfer and boarding records ; proof of ownership and authority to enforce the note and mortgage as of the date the foreclosure complaint was filed ; written explanations for each loan number associated with the account ; and a complete accounting and justification for all post-filing fees and charges assessed. This failure also includes Shellpoints refusal to reconcile or substantiate its admitted discrepancy that XXXX XXXX appears as a signatory on the recorded Mortgage but not on the Note, including the absence of any signed debt instrument evidencing his liability, authentic signature affidavits, notary journals or certifications for XX/XX/XXXX, or identification of any party who added or authorized his name post-closing. Instead, Shellpoint has issued only generic validation-of-debt correspondence, mischaracterized the scope of my requests, and deferred its statutory obligations. \n\nXXXX. Inconsistent Disclaimers of Knowledge While Enforcing the Loan In the XX/XX/XXXX response, Shellpoint states it does not have knowledge of the loan closing or other aspects of the loan unrelated to servicing, while also asserting detailed factual narratives regarding origination, borrower identity, payment history, and foreclosure authority. \nThis is internally inconsistent. Once Shellpoint : Collected payments ; Evaluated loss mitigation; Referred the loan to foreclosure counsel ; Scheduled and completed a foreclosure sale ; it assumed responsibility for verifying the validity of the instruments it relied upon. \n\nXXXX. Improper Identity Theft Burden-Shifting Shellpoint now demands photo identification, a Social Security card , notarized affidavits, and a police report as a precondition to investigating fraud. \nMy dispute does not allege random identity theft. It alleges : Document fabrication and alteration ; Non-matching loan instruments ; Fraudulent adoption of defective documents in servicing and foreclosure. \nRequiring law-enforcement reports under these circumstances is coercive, improper, and inconsistent with consumer protection standards. \n\nXXXX. Foreclosure Proceeded Despite Active, Unresolved Disputes Shellpoint acknowledges that : CFPB and IDFPR complaints were active ; Multiple written disputes were pending ; Document inconsistencies were never resolved ; Yet it proceeded with foreclosure and sheriffs sale while recycling the same disputed factual assertions. This reflects willful noncompliance and bad-faith servicing. \n\nXXXX. Requested CFPB Action I respectfully request that the CFPB : Reject Shellpoints XX/XX/XXXX, response as non-responsive and misleading ; Require Shellpoint to reconcile its contradictory statements across XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ; Compel Shellpoint to identify which mortgage and note it relied upon to foreclose, and why ; Escalate this matter for supervisory review, given the repeated misrepresentations by the same compliance agent ; Preserve this rebuttal as part of the official CFPB record. \nShellpoints responses demonstrate a clear pattern of contradiction, evasion, and reliance on disputed instruments. The XX/XX/XXXX submission does not cure these defectsit compounds them. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX/ Complainant Date : XX/XX/XXXX 2025","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-07T17:00:13.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"60046","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18257143","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-23T20:23:22.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Improper</em> Reliance on QWR Scope to Avoid Substantive Answers Across its responses, Shellpoint repeatedly claims that inquiries <em>regarding</em> origination, document integrity, or chain of title fall outside the scope of a Qualified Written Request ( QWR )."]},"sort":[9.805238,"18257143"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":40,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":40}]}},"product":{"doc_count":40,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":17}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":7,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":40,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":9}]}},{"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":3},{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foreclosure","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 enough information to verify debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with signing the paperwork","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company communicating payment assistance or payment extension options","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":40,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":38},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":40,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":30},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":7},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":40,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":40}]}},"company":{"doc_count":40,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":2},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES","doc_count":2},{"key":"CBC Companies, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Earnest Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"I.C. System, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mutual Management Services LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicer under contract with Federal Student Aid","doc_count":1},{"key":"Velocity Portfolio Group","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":40,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NY","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"GA","doc_count":4},{"key":"IL","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"PR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":40,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":18},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":40,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_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":[9.805238,"18257143"]}}}