{"took":219,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":61,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18910531","_score":22.045748,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT BANK OF AMERICA ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) Complaint narrative ( copy/paste for CFPB portal ) I am filing a comprehensive complaint against Bank of America for systemic consumer-finance misconduct involving : ( 1 ) deceptive inducement and improper credit inquiry ; ( 2 ) Regulation E error-resolution violations relating to an unauthorized transaction dispute, not providing provisional credit in timely manner ; ( 3 ) ongoing account fee charging and harmful account treatment while a dispute remained active ; ( 4 ) obstruction, contradictory communications, and refusal to disclose internal investigation records ; and ( 5 ) downstream financial, credit, and business harm caused by Bank of Americas failure to follow required dispute-handling procedures. \n\nA. Deceptive small-business offer and improper credit handling ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ). \nIn or about XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of Americas Small Business Team sent me a promotional XXXX partnership offer advertising incentives/bonuses and a statement credit for opening a business account and applying for a small business credit product. I applied in good faith. Bank of America immediately denied the application but performed a hard credit inquiry despite apparent foreknowledge or likelihood of denial. The bank did not provide a proper adverse-action notice. This conduct constitutes deceptive inducement, unfair credit handling, and consumer harm. \n\nB. Regulation E dispute mishandling unauthorized transaction claim ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  onward ). \nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer under Regulation E. Bank of America opened the claim but repeatedly failed to provide meaningful documentation, case updates, or consistent investigation information. I submitted supporting evidence on or about XX/XX/XXXX. Bank personnel gave contradictory statements about whether evidence was received or reviewed, including blaming me for supposed submission/fax issues, while a Regulation E specialist confirmed the evidence was reviewed. Bank personnel also provided contradictory denial rationales and shifting narratives regarding investigation steps. \n\nC. Escalation obstruction and contradictory internal representations ( XXXX XXXX ). \nMultiple Bank of America representatives caused procedural confusion and obstructed resolution. I was transferred incorrectly when requesting a Regulation E specialist, then later told by other personnel that earlier transfers were wrong and had to be corrected. A dispute team representative confirmed on or about XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  that the claim would be resubmitted/reconsidered, yet it was not processed. A fraud department agent later stated my evidence/notes were reviewed only after the claim and blamed me for procedural deficiencies, while a Regulation E specialist confirmed review occurred. A supervisor-level agent ( XXXX ) misrepresented provisional credit procedures and then terminated the call while I was clarifying claim details. These events show a pattern of unreliable process narratives, misrepresentation, and interference with dispute rights. \n\nD. Unlawful fee charging / account harm while dispute active and liability unresolved ( ongoing ).\n\nWhile the dispute remained active and liability had not been determined, Bank of America continued charging my account and treating the account as collectible and fee-generating. I have been charged while the bank simultaneously failed to properly conclude the error-resolution process. If the account was closed, I was not provided proper notice. If it remains open, the banks continued charging and collection-style communications during an active dispute constitutes abusive interference with consumer rights and further financial harm. \n\nE. Refusal to disclose internal logs, case notes, and accountability records.\n\nWhen I requested internal logs, investigation notes, or any disciplinary/accountability information relating to mishandling, Bank of America refused or deflected. This appears to be deliberate record suppression and obstruction, preventing verification of what the bank actually did versus what it claims it did. \n\nF. Harm and systemic impact.\n\nBank of Americas conduct caused continued financial harm ( fees, negative balance effects, restricted access to funds ), interference with dispute rights, emotional distress, time loss, and severe disruption to business operations. The banks mishandling contributed to a cascading chain of consumer harm including credit impacts, inability to transact normally, and additional downstream processor/credit/banking issues. This conduct reflects a pattern of unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. \n\nThis complaint concerns violations and misconduct implicating Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), the Consumer Financial Protection Act / UDAAP standards ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ), the FTC Acts deception standards, and credit-handling duties including FCRA-related issues regarding inquiry/data use. I request CFPB supervisory review and enforcement-level scrutiny due to repeated contradictory representations and ongoing harm. \nBank of Americas actions show an intentional pattern : contradictory narratives, fabricated procedural blame, refusal to disclose records, and continued fee-charging while a legally protected dispute remained active. This is not a good-faith error-resolution process it is systematic interference with consumer rights and a UDAAP-level compliance failure.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-22T01:50:21.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18910531","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-22T01:37:13.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> BANK OF AMERICA ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  ) <em>Complaint</em> <em>narrative</em> ( copy/paste for CFPB portal ) I am <em>filing</em> a comprehensive <em>complaint</em> against Bank of America for systemic consumer-finance misconduct involving : ( 1 ) deceptive inducement and improper credit inquiry ; ( 2 ) <em>Regulation</em> E <em>error</em>-resolution violations relating to an unauthorized transaction dispute, not providing provisional credit in timely manner ; ( 3 ) ongoing account fee charging and harmful account treatment while a dispute"]},"sort":[22.045748,"18910531"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19546340","_score":18.29705,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Bank of America Regulation E Dispute and Claim Denials Claim Numbers : XXXX and XXXX Disputed Amounts : Claim XXXX {$57000.00} Claim XXXX {$36000.00} Complaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint regarding Bank of Americas denial of my Regulation E claims involving unauthorized debit card electronic fund transfers from my checking account. \n\nI reported unauthorized transactions to Bank of America on XX/XX/year>. The disputed activity involved multiple third-party merchants and other transactions that were not authorized by me. \n\nBank of America issued certain temporary credits on XX/XX/year> for non-third party merchant related claims. However, no provisional credit was issued for the third-party related debit card transactions associated with the denied claims listed above. \n\nBank of America issued denial notices dated XX/XX/year> stating : The charge was authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card or account. \n\nThis conclusion conflicts with both the facts and the Regulation E definition of unauthorized electronic fund transfers ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.2 ( m ) ). \n\nI did not authorize these transactions. \nI did not grant permission to any individual or third party.\n\nI did not share my debit card, PIN, credentials, XXXX ID, passcode, or device access. \nI did not benefit from the transactions. \n\nI had no prior relationship or transaction history with the third-party merchants involved in the disputed activity. \n\nDenied Claims : Claim Number XXXX {$57000.00} Claim Number XXXX {$36000.00} Both claims involve debit card electronic fund transfers that meet the Regulation E definition of unauthorized transactions.\n\nGeographic / Technical Impossibility : The disputed transactions were processed through third-party merchant applications that require real-time geolocation verification. These services are not operable in North Carolina, where I reside and was physically located during the relevant timeframe. \n\nAt all relevant times : My mailing address on file is active in North Carolina My normal transaction activity occurred in North Carolina My physical presence was North Carolina Evidence Submission Timeline : My supporting documentation and evidence packet were transmitted to Bank of America via fax on XX/XX/year>, within approximately 24 hours of the fraud claims being filed. \n\nDespite the evidence being provided promptly, Bank of America issued denial determinations shortly thereafter. The denial notices were dated XX/XX/XXXX/ XX/XX/year>. \n\nBecause the documentation was provided prior to the claim determinations, it is unclear whether the submitted evidence was reviewed or considered as part of the Regulation XXXX investigation. \n\nThis raises concerns regarding whether the investigation complied with Regulation Es error resolution requirements, including the obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information. \n\nSupporting documentation demonstrating my North Carolina presence and normal transaction behavior was transmitted to Bank of America as follows : Evidence packet faxed on XX/XX/year> Evidence resent on XX/XX/year> by a senior banker at a Bank of America branch in XXXX, North Carolina Despite submission of documentation prior to denial, Bank of America issued denials on XX/XX/year>. It is unclear whether the evidence was reviewed or considered. \n\nBranch Verification Evidence : I was physically present at a Bank of America XXXX in XXXX, North Carolina on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year> while actively working with bank personnel regarding my frozen accounts and fraud claims. Working with XXXX, XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX. \n\nThis includes : In-branch meetings with Bank of America staff XXXX fax transmission of supporting documentation In-branch ATM usage on XX/XX/year> Regulation E Concerns : This complaint concerns Bank of Americas compliance with Regulation E error-resolution obligations, including : Failure to provide provisional credit for disputed debit card transactions Denial based on asserted authorization without explanation of factual basis Failure to address geographic and technical impossibility Apparent failure to acknowledge transmitted documentation Under Regulation XXXX, an electronic fund transfer is unauthorized unless the consumer actually furnished authority. Payment network approval or device tokenization does not establish consumer authorization. \n\nRequested Resolution : I respectfully request that Bank of America : Reopen the Regulation E investigations for both denied claims Identify the specific evidence relied upon to conclude authorization Confirm review of transmitted documentation Apply Regulation Es definition of unauthorized transfers Provide reimbursement for qualifying unauthorized transactions Attached Documents included : Branch ATM receipt XX/XX/year> Senior banker business card XXXX XXXX ( XXXX, North Carolina location ) North Carolina Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX receipts Order history / transaction pattern documentation Any previously faxed evidence packet ( all of which has been sent to the Bank of America Fraud team by myself & XXXX XXXX on XXXX at an XXXX, North Carolina branch location ) * All documents excluding Branch ATM receipt, Senior banker business card, XXXX NC Branch XX/XX/XXXX were all sent in to Bank of America via fax, multiple times *","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-17T03:53:10.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"273XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19546340","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-02-17T03:23:37.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Subject : Bank of America <em>Regulation</em> E Dispute and <em>Claim</em> Denials <em>Claim</em> Numbers : <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> Disputed Amounts : <em>Claim</em> <em>XXXX</em> {$57000.00} <em>Claim</em> <em>XXXX</em> {$36000.00} <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> regarding Bank of Americas denial of my <em>Regulation</em> E <em>claims</em> involving unauthorized debit card electronic fund transfers from my checking account. \n\nI reported unauthorized transactions to Bank of America on XX/XX/year>."]},"sort":[18.29705,"19546340"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19105022","_score":17.96103,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Company : American Express Product : Credit Card Issue : Billing dispute / chargeback denied State where transaction occurred : District of Columbia Complaint Narrative I am filing a complaint against American Express for refusing to reverse charges for home improvement services that were collected unlawfully under District of Columbia law.\n\nI paid a merchant for home improvement services in the District of Columbia. After payment was made, I discovered the merchant was not licensed as required under applicable District of Columbia home improvement regulations, and thus did not have legal authority to accept payment for the services provided. The work was also not code-complaint, and I had to redo a lot of the work.\n\nUnder District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, no person shall require or accept any payment for a home improvement contract unless properly licensed as a home improvement contractor or as a licensed salesperson employed by a licensed contractor. 16 DCMR 800.1. The regulations define home improvement work broadly to include remodeling, repair, alteration, improvement, or replacement of residential property. Any money paid to an unlicensed contractor is recoverable by the homeowner. \n\n\nI provided American Express with documentation showing : The charges were for home improvement services performed in the XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nThe merchant was not licensed as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX law. \n\nUnder 16 DCMR 800.1, the merchant had no legal authority to accept payment and the contract is therefore void and any payments are recoverable. \n\n\nDespite receiving this information, American Express denied my dispute and allowed the merchant to retain payment from an unlawful transaction, stating that the merchant claimed that there were no issues with quality of the work ( false- the work was not code compliant ) and that I never asked if the merchant is licensed ( irrelevant ). \n\n\nBy refusing to reverse charges arising from a transaction that was unlawful under District of Columbia law, American Express facilitated and upheld an illegal transaction in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act and failed to protect my rights as a consumer. American Express did not provide any legal justification grounded in statute or regulation for allowing an unlicensed merchant to retain funds obtained through an unlawful transaction. \n\n\nThis is not a simple service-quality dispute. The underlying transaction was unlawful because the merchant lacked the license required under District of Columbia law, and American Express was put on notice of the illegality yet still refused to correct the billing error. \n\n\nPlease see attached the dispute letter. I would be happy to provide any other evidence as requested.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-29T17:12:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"20850","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19105022","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-01-29T16:53:18.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Company : American Express Product : Credit Card Issue : Billing dispute / chargeback denied State where transaction occurred : District of Columbia <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am <em>filing</em> a <em>complaint</em> against American Express for refusing to reverse charges for home improvement services that were collected unlawfully under District of Columbia law.\n\nI paid a merchant for home improvement services in the District of Columbia."]},"sort":[17.96103,"19105022"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18984151","_score":17.375181,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative : I am filing this complaint against XXXX ( PayPal Holdings , Inc. ) for a violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ) regarding an unauthorized {$420.00} charge by XXXX XXXX. \nThe Facts : On XX/XX/year>, I entered into a specific, written payment agreement with XXXX XXXX. This signed contract ( attached ) explicitly revoked any previous authorization for card charges and established a 20-day window for me to pay via mailed check. \nDespite this written revocation of card authorization, the merchant used card data \" on file '' to pull funds via XXXX  just 24 hours later. I did not sign for, PIN-authorize, or otherwise consent to this card transaction. \nXXXX  Failure : I disputed this charge with XXXX, providing the signed waiver as proof that the transaction was unauthorized. XXXX  denied the dispute, claiming that because I \" know '' the merchant, the charge is authorized. This is a direct violation of 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ). A transaction is unauthorized if it is initiated by a person without actual authority. By signing a contract for a check payment, any \" standing '' card authority was legally terminated. \nXXXX  is refusing to perform its error-resolution duties under Regulation E, instead insisting that I provide a \" refund receipt '' from a merchant that is uncooperatively holding stolen funds. \nFurthermore, XXXX processing of this transaction was negligent and inconsistent with standard consumer protection safeguards. At the time this unauthorized {$420.00} charge was initiated, my XXXX  account balance was only {$7.00}. \nFailure to Decline : Standard protocol for a debit transaction with insufficient funds is an immediate decline. XXXX  instead allowed the merchant to pull funds that were not available, creating a massive negative balance without my consent. \nAbusive Practice : Allowing an unauthorized merchant to 'overdraft ' a consumer account by hundreds of dollarsespecially after that consumer has signed a separate agreement to pay via checkis an abusive and predatory practice. \nNon-Consent to Overdraft : I have not opted into any overdraft service that would authorize XXXX  to approve a $ XXXX transaction on a {$7.00} balance for a charge I did not sign for or authorize. ''","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-24T20:31:48.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"98030","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18984151","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-01-24T20:04:45.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> against <em>XXXX</em> ( PayPal Holdings , Inc. ) for a violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( <em>Regulation</em> E ) regarding an unauthorized {$420.00} charge by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \nThe Facts : On XX/XX/year>, I entered into a specific, written payment agreement with <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. This signed contract ( attached ) explicitly revoked any previous authorization for card charges and established a 20-day window for me to pay via mailed check."]},"sort":[17.375181,"18984151"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19664582","_score":17.20123,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Company : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX ( Customer Relations signed by XXXX XXXX ) Product : Mortgage servicing Loan modification / loss mitigation Issue type ( CFPB ) : Trouble getting a loan modification ; servicing errors ; inaccurate information ; document execution / notary scheduling issues ; error resolution handling What outcome I want Immediate escalation to a loss-mitigation/Executive Resolution supervisor empowered to finalize my modification. \nWritten correction of all false or inaccurate statements made about notary scheduling, missed appointments, and the reason ( XXXX ) my modification was delayed/denied. \nA complete, dated, itemized timeline of every loss-mitigation action taken ( all outbound sends, all inbound receipts, and all internal review notes ) and copies of the records relied upon.\n\nA confirmed notary appointment ( with notary name/company, date/time window, and the phone number that will contact me ) OR written permission to use my own notary without penalty/delay.\n\nConfirmation that no adverse credit reporting, fees, foreclosure activity, or negative servicing notes will occur due to the servicers errors/misrepresentations and the resulting delay.\n\nWhat happened ( consumer narrative ) I am filing a complaint because the servicer/lender is misrepresenting key facts about my VA loan modification processspecifically, the scheduling of a notary appointmentand has also made inconsistent or false statements about why my modification was delayed/denied. \nOn XX/XX/year>, the company issued a written resolution letter ( Research Reference # XXXX ; File Number XXXX ) addressed to the Michigan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and copied to me. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter claims : They assisted [ me ] in scheduling a notary appointment for XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX, and that I later called and they confirmed that appointment. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX further claims that on XX/XX/year> I told them I missed the scheduled notary appointment, and then they scheduled a new appointment for XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have audio recordings from the notary/service provider confirming that the notary appointment was never scheduled as represented. The written statements in the companys letter are therefore false and misleading. I am attaching the audio files and can provide transcripts. \nIn addition, the companys explanations for why my loan modification was delayed/handled the way it was have been inconsistent. The letter also describes repeated execution issues ( signature formatting and notary stamping concerns ) and claims it made multiple re-sends of my modification documents between XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX want the CFPB to require the company to produce the complete servicing record showing : ( a ) exactly what documents were sent, ( b ) exactly what was received and when, ( c ) who reviewed it, ( d ) what defect they identified, and ( e ) what precise instructions were provided to cure it. \nFinally, the company labeled its response a RESPA RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ERROR and stated after completing a reasonable investigation it has been determined no error occurred, while also claiming I have the right to access documents relied upon. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, because their written narrative about notary scheduling is contradicted by the notarys own confirmation, an error did occur, and the company must correct the account history and provide the supporting records. \nWhy this is a problem The servicers written statements contain material inaccuracies about loss-mitigation steps ( notary scheduling ) that directly impact my ability to complete a modification. \nMisrepresenting servicing actions and then denying error after a reasonable investigation undermines the accuracy, transparency, and fairness required in mortgage servicing and loss mitigation. \nI should not be harmed ( fees, credit reporting, foreclosure risk, delays ) due to the companys misstatements and process failures. \nSupporting documents Im attaching Company resolution letter dated XX/XX/year> ( XXXX XXXX / Customer Relations ) describing the notary scheduling and modification timeline. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Audio files from the notary/service provider confirming the appointment was never scheduled ( and transcripts if needed ).\n\nAny call logs, emails, texts, or screenshots showing attempted scheduling / lack of confirmation.\n\nRegulatory basis : This involves loss mitigation servicing under Regulation X ( RESPA ), 12 CFR 1024.41, and error resolution / information requests under 12 CFR 1024.351024.36. The servicer provided a written RESPA response to notice of error but the notary scheduling facts stated in its letter are contradicted by the notary providers confirmation, requiring correction and production of records relied upon.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-20T20:32:04.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"48239","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19664582","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2026-02-20T20:06:35.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Finally, the company labeled its response a RESPA RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF <em>ERROR</em> and stated after completing a reasonable investigation it has been determined no <em>error</em> occurred, while also <em>claiming</em> I have the right to access documents relied upon. \n<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, because their written <em>narrative</em> about notary scheduling is contradicted by the notarys own confirmation, an <em>error</em> did occur, and the company must correct the account history and provide the supporting records."]},"sort":[17.20123,"19664582"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17534605","_score":16.978888,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Regulatory Control ) XXXX  Product : Checking or Savings Account XXXX  Complaint Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : Problems when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Your Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank of America account received an unauthorized ACH DEPOSIT of {$39.00} on XX/XX/year>XXXX  with the descriptor XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a clear case of potential identity theft using my name. \nThe institutional process at Bank of America constitutes a systemic regulatory failure in seven major ways : PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ( PRIOR CFPB FILINGS ) : This is not an isolated event. Prior CFPB complaints filed by me against Bank of America document a continuing pattern of systemic failure and policy abuse that deliberately obstructs fraud investigation and shifts liability onto the victim. This current case must be viewed within the context of the bank 's established, non-compliant operational history.\n\nINTENTIONAL DELAY & SHORTENING OF STATUTORY REMEDY WINDOW : The bank 's internal policy mandates that the claim 's official start date is delayed until the NEXT BUSINESS DAY after the fraud is reported. This procedure is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for dispute resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to investigate their claim.\n\nSYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from filing a direct \" Fraud '' claim for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority \" Dispute '' or \" Billing Error '' category. This deliberate abuse of Regulation E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery. The banks process actively routes high-priority fraud cases away from required investigation tracks. \nImplied Admission, Obstruction, and Warning of Personal Risk : During my call at XXXXXXXX XXXX  EST ( Ref : XXXX XXXX ), the representative named XXXX provided an explicit and alarming warning to \" be careful '' before transferring me. This warning, coupled with XXXX having misspoken about a \" XXXX and something dollar credit, '' strongly suggests internal staff awareness of a hazardous or compromised claim process. Furthermore, the bank refused to provide any documentation in writing confirming the systemic policy flaws, which constitutes deliberate obstruction. \nEGREGIOUS BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE ( SUICIDAL DISCLOSURE ) : During a prior, separate call concerning money being taken from my account ( approximately a couple of months ago, right before my daughter 's birthday ), I directly disclosed to the Bank of America representative that I was crying, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  and self-harm due to the financial distress caused by the bank 's actions. The representative, upon hearing this direct disclosure of suicidal ideation, failed to follow any institutional crisis protocol, failed to advise me to seek help, and failed to connect me to any XXXX XXXX resources. This profound disregard for consumer welfare constitutes an EGREGIOUS BREACH OF THE BANK 'S DUTY OF CARE, directly linking their financial misconduct to the endangerment of a customer 's life. \nContradictory Regulatory Stance ( Control the Narrative ) : The bank 's internal processes create a contradictory regulatory stance. While the serious, high-value fraud against my account likely triggered an internal Suspicious Activity Report ( SAR ) treating me as the source of suspicionthe bank simultaneously forced my official complaint into a low-priority \" Dispute '' category. This dual action is a deliberate attempt to control the regulatory narrative and shift liability.\n\nMishandling of Funds : As a direct result of the misclassification and delay, the bank has failed to properly isolate, remove, or trace the fraudulent funds, leaving the unauthorized {$39.00} commingled in my account. \nDesired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud compliance officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic audit of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E compliance, internal SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures. Given the systemic nature of this fraud, the institutional cover-up, and the severe breach of duty of care, I demand that the CFPB use its authority to facilitate the immediate connection of the victim with suitable class action counsel to pursue structural remediation and a class-wide remedy for all affected consumers. We demand mandatory civil penalties for these systemic violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T04:30:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17534605","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-26T04:20:08.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["SYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from <em>filing</em> a direct \" Fraud '' <em>claim</em> for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority \" Dispute '' or \" Billing <em>Error</em> '' category. This deliberate abuse of <em>Regulation</em> E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery."]},"sort":[16.978888,"17534605"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14619615","_score":16.200142,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative : I am filing this complaint against Chime Financial , Inc., regarding their mishandling of a {$3300.00} dispute ( Dispute ID : XXXX and XXXX ) for a transaction with XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX on my Chime Credit Builder Visa card . I originally filed the dispute by phone on XX/XX/2025, for goods/services not as described. Since then, I have experienced ongoing financial harm, conflicting information, legal violations, and outright neglect by Chime. Worse, CFPB has failed to intervene despite two prior complaints, one marked responded with no correction of the violations, and another wrongly dismissed as a duplicate despite being based on new facts.\n\nPRIOR CFPB COMPLAINT FAILURES : My first complaint ( XX/XX/2025 ) was marked company responded, despite Chimes clear Regulation Z violations and refusal to issue provisional credit. No enforcement or follow-up occurred. \nMy second complaint ( XX/XX/2025 ) was rejected as a duplicate, even though it described new developments including the rebuttal, ongoing hardship, failure to resolve, and conflicting info from Chime. \nThis complaint is not a duplicate. It covers XXXX XXXX violations and includes new emails, call recordings, and confirmation that Chime found a billing error and still refused to credit my account. \n\nTIMELINE OF EVENTS & MISCONDUCT : XX/XX/2025 I filed the dispute via phone. Chime sent an email promising resolution by XX/XX/2025. \nXX/XX/2025 Chime denied the dispute with no documentation or legal explanation. \nXX/XX/2025 I submitted a formal rebuttal with evidence. \nXX/XX/2025 Chime claimed a chargeback was filed. \nXX/XX/2025 I notified Chime of financial hardship and asked for provisional credit. I also received an email saying a chargeback was already in progress for my rebuttal yet no date or timeline was given. \nXX/XX/2025 Chime finally sent the denial documentation, which was my own rebuttal documents. Meaning they used evidence I provided after the denial to justify the original denial which is impossible and a violation of Regulation Z. \nXX/XX/2025 My husband, who filed a similar dispute with a different bank using the same evidence, was refunded in full. \nXX/XX/2025 A Chime dispute representative stated on a recorded call : Chime has determined a billing error occurred. Were just waiting to force them to return your money. Despite this, no credit was issued. \nChime staff repeatedly told me that pre-arbitration had been filed, while others said a new chargeback had begun violating Visas rules that pre-arbitration cant begin until an investigation is complete and a determination is made. Chime also said chargebacks are just merchant communications, which contradicts Visa Core Rule 11.3, where chargebacks represent a formal request for reversal and are not informal messages. REGULATION Z VIOLATIONS ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) : 1. 1026.13 ( c ) ( 1 ) Acknowledgment and Denial Requirements I received no explanation of the XX/XX/XXXX denial. \nThe XX/XX/XXXX email only linked to documentation that I had submitted, not evidence from the merchant. No legal explanation was provided.\n\n2. 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ) Timely Resolution Chime was required to resolve the dispute within 90 days or two billing cycles ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), whichever is shorter. That deadline passed on XX/XX/2025. \nI received no resolution or funds by that date, violating this rule. \n\n3. 1026.13 ( d ) ( 1 ) Provisional Credit & Collection Bar I notified Chime of financial hardship on XXXX XXXX XXXX.\n\nUnder Reg Z, a creditor must suspend collection on the disputed amount and is expected to issue provisional credit when hardship is reported and the investigation continues.\n\nNo provisional credit was issued.\n\nI was told on the call that Chime determined a billing error yet 1026.13 ( e ) says once a billing error is confirmed, it must be corrected immediately, including issuing credit. Chime has not done so.\n\n4. 1026.13 ( f ) Explanation of Resolution I never received any proper written explanation of the denial that includes the creditors reasoning or merchant response.\n\nVISA RULE VIOLATIONS : Per Visa Core Rules Section 11.3.2 : The Issuer should provide provisional credit to the Cardholders account in the amount of the dispute during the investigation period.\n\nPer Visas Interlink Operating Regulations : An Issuer must provide provisional credit for the amount of a dispute or unauthorized transaction within 5 business days of notification of hardship or investigation delay.\n\nChime has violated Visas rules by : Not issuing provisional credit during an extended investigation.\n\nMisrepresenting the chargeback process.\n\nClaiming pre-arbitration was filed before final resolution, violating Visa process rules.\n\nDECEPTIVE, ABUSIVE, AND UNFAIR PRACTICES : I was repeatedly hung up on by Chime supervisors for quality reasons despite remaining calm and respectful. I have call recordings.\n\nChime refused to answer questions and contradicted itself constantly.\n\nOne rep claimed my rebuttal reset the timeline a false and misleading statement under Regulation Z. \nChimes email on XX/XX/XXXX promised resolution by XX/XX/XXXX, but theyve ignored that. The XX/XX/XXXX email confirmed a chargeback was already in progress, yet gave no deadline. \nI am a longtime Chime user of 5 years with 3 disabled children whose SSI benefits are deposited into Chime. This mishandling has caused hardship, mental distress, and late fees for rent and utilities. My kids and I have had to skip meals due to this.\n\nFINAL DEMAND : I am requesting the CFPB investigate and enforce the following : 1. Immediate credit of {$3300.00} to my Chime Credit Builder account.\n\n2. Full explanation of the June 3 denial and all documentation used.\n\n3. Confirmation of chargeback and pre-arbitration dates.\n\n4. Explanation for the failure to issue provisional credit after XX/XX/XXXX hardship notice. \n5. Explanation of why credit was not issued when Chime confirmed a billing error on XX/XX/XXXX. \n6. Investigation into whether Chime is in systemic violation of Regulation Z and Visa rules.\n\n7. Review of CFPBs own mishandling of prior complaints, including wrongful duplicate designation and lack of regulatory enforcement despite clear legal breaches.\n\nI will add additional attachments upon request as all of my documentation uploaded prior has never been reviewed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-14T17:03:32.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"395XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14619615","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-07-14T01:50:26.000Z","state":"MS","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> against Chime Financial , Inc., regarding their mishandling of a {$3300.00} dispute ( Dispute ID : <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> ) for a transaction with XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> on my Chime Credit Builder Visa card . I originally <em>filed</em> the dispute by phone on <em>XX/XX</em>/2025, for goods/services not as described. Since then, I have experienced ongoing financial harm, conflicting information, legal violations, and outright neglect by Chime."]},"sort":[16.200142,"14619615"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14078502","_score":16.084545,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I hope this finds you well. I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered complaints by Experian that were filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB Complaint XXXX. \n\nDespite multiple formal complaints filed with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved. Experian has claimed that my dispute could not be processed due to a lack of information ; however, I have provided all personally identifying information required under federal law, including my full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, current mailing address, phone number, and email address. I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information. I believe this constitutes perjury and other violations of United States Codeboth criminal and civil.\n\nPursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), consumer reporting agencies are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when furnished with sufficient identifying information and the nature of the dispute. I have met all legal thresholds under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically under 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( i ), which mandates reinvestigation of disputed items when proper notice is given. Experian has not investigated this matter, consistent with federal law. Rather, once again, I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information to avoid having to do their jobs or upset a banking partner -- especially since Experian now offers debit card services. \n\nThis inaccurate and unresolved derogatory mark on my credit report is not only unwarranted given the timely payments made in XX/XX/year>, but it has also caused substantial harm beyond financial inconvenience. As a current law student aXXXX XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, I have been forced to disclose this matter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX due to its potential professional implications. Further, under the character and fitness requirements of the State Bar of Georgia, I may be required to disclose this credit dispute during the bar application process. This unjustified derogatory credit report entry could negatively affect my ability to sit for and pass the bar exam, directly impairing my future in the legal profession. I respectfully request that the CFPB take this matter seriously and request the CFPB order that the XX/XX/year> 30-day late payment notation be removed without further delay.\n\nIn accordance with my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), I am formally disputing the inaccurate reporting of a 30-day late payment for XX/XX/year> on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card account XXXX I made two timely payments during that billing cycle {$130.00} on XX/XX/year> ( satisfying more than the required minimum ), and an additional {$160.00} on XX/XX/year>. Both payments were posted well within the billing period, and at no point was my account delinquent by 30 days or more. \n\nThe credit reporting error has resulted in a significant and unjustified drop in my credit score. I am respectfully requesting the immediate correction of this error and removal of the inaccurate late payment notation from my credit history with all relevant credit bureaus. Supporting documentation is enclosed, along with the original complaint filed that list all required information under federal law that Experian is making false statements about.\n\nThe information relevant to this disputeincluding the underlying facts, payment confirmations, and timeline of eventsis fully contained in the supplemental attachments provided. Additionally, a short narrative has been included in the updated portion of this submission to ensure clarity and compliance. This has been done specifically to preempt and refute any further false or misleading claims by Experian that there is \" not enough information '' to process the dispute. Such claims are directly contrary to federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 [ i ] ) and implementing regulations under 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), which requires only basic identifying information and the nature of the dispute to trigger a reinvestigation. All such required informationmy full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, mailing address, phone number, email address, and a description of the errorhas been provided in full.\n\nAll information required under federal law to process and investigate this dispute has been fully provided, including my personal identifying details, a detailed description of the issue, and supporting documentation.\n\nTherefore, no further communication from Experian or any party should assert that there is not enough information to proceed. This claim has already been falsely made once and is without merit. In addition to the written narrative, I have included ample supplemental materials, such as payment confirmation screenshots and relevant bank records, which clearly demonstrate the error. The volume and clarity of the evidence submitted leave no legitimate basis to delay or deny a proper reinvestigation.\n\nIt appears that Experians reliance on third-party vendors to handle disputes is part of the problem, as their vendors must be operating with inaccurate or incomplete information. However, as consumers, we are never told who these vendors are or what methods they use to investigate disputesleaving the process entirely opaque and unaccountable. In my case, Experian only initiated any investigation after I filed a separate complaint highlighting their failure to act professionally or at all, contrary to federal law and federal regulations. Their claim that there was not enough information was not only false but seemed to be a deliberate attempt to avoid initiating a reinvestigation. Once that complaint forced them to act, Experian quickly ruled against meclearly favoring a result that would shield them from admitting that they had failed to follow federal law and had neglected their legal obligations to consumers. To acknowledge the error would have been to admit that they did not perform their duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that they allowed inaccurate information to harm consumers like myself. It appeared as if it was rigged, because it felt like it was just a game of mitigating legal liability for Experian.\n\nP.S. : I expressly reserve any and all rights and liberties afforded to me under statutory law, constitutional provisions, judicial precedent, and all other applicable legal frameworks, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, associated provisions within the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations, the Rules & Regulations of the State of Georgia, and the applicable ordinances and regulatory authority of XXXX XXXX and the City of Atlanta. I further reserve all rights under law and equity to pursue appropriate civil remedies and, if warranted, initiate or recommend criminal proceedings or referrals to applicable local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies.\n\nP.P.S. : I also formally request full transparency regarding this dispute, including the identity of the investigator ( s ) assigned to this matter and the name ( s ) of any third-party vendor ( s ) used by Experian in conducting their review. If any vendor or agent acted upon false or incomplete information or failed to comply with federal standards of reinvestigation, then theyand any individuals acting beyond their authorized scopemay be held personally and professionally liable in addition to their respective corporate entities. \n\nP.P.P.S : It is also important to note that, according to XXXX XXXX own policies and standard industry practices, negative credit reporting does not occur unless a payment is thirty ( 30 ) days past due. In this case, the minimum payment was made on XX/XX/year>, and a second payment was made just five days later on XXXX XXXX well within the billing cycle and well before the 30-day threshold. Even if the XX/XX/XXXX payment had posted a day late, it would not have triggered a 30-day delinquency under either industry norms or the Cardholder Agreement governing my account. Therefore, XXXX XXXX reporting of a 30-day late payment is factually and contractually unjustified and must be corrected. \n\nNARRATIVE : In midXXXX, I checked my credit score and was shocked to see a steep decline. I looked and noticed my payment history section was inaccurately dinged. It claimed I was late 30 days or more on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX payment. That is incorrect, and I am requesting that it be removed from my credit report. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I paid more than the minimum payment obligation required ( {$130.00} ). Furthermore, on XX/XX/year>, I made an additional payment to XXXX XXXX toward my balance ( {$160.00} ). This was in addition to satisfying my minimum payment obligation ( {$25.00} a month ) that I paid in full and fulfilled on XX/XX/year> by a payment of {$130.00}. \n\nThe Experian Credit Report inaccurately reports that XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was a past due account by 30 days. That is incorrect because payments were made on XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>. Both payments were above the minimum payment required and received/posted in early XX/XX/year>, making it impossible to be 30 days past due. \n\nI am requesting the inaccurate information regarding payment history be removed from my credit report history.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T21:58:25.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14078502","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-14T21:45:14.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered <em>complaints</em> by Experian that were <em>filed</em> with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \n\nDespite multiple formal <em>complaints</em> <em>filed</em> with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved."]},"sort":[16.084545,"14078502"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14295600","_score":16.021278,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Inaccurate Late-Payment Reporting and FCRA/TILA Violations by Equifax Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Submitted by : [ Your Full Name ] Consumer Complaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint against Equifax for reporting false and harmful late-payment information on my credit report concerning my XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX credit card account ( partial account number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nIssue Summary : Equifax reports a XXXX-day late payment for XX/XX/2023, while both XXXX and XXXX report no such delinquency and show an uninterrupted OK payment history. This inconsistency clearly indicates a failure to ensure accurate credit reporting.\n\nDespite multiple prior dispute attempts, Equifax has not corrected the error and continues to show Consumer disputes this account information without resolution. This constitutes willful noncompliance with multiple federal laws. \n\nViolations Cited : FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Equifax is required to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. Reporting a late payment that other CRAs confirm never occurred violates this obligation.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Equifax failed to reasonably investigate my dispute and correct inaccurate information, despite being notified.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishers and CRAs must correct or delete information that is incomplete or inaccurate once a dispute is filed. This has not been done.\n\nTILA 15 U.S.C. 1637 and 1666b : Creditors must provide accurate and timely statements. If the delinquency claim is based on creditor reporting, then either Equifax or the furnisher ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX has violated the Truth in Lending Act.\n\n12 CFR 1022.42 CFPB Regulation V ( Furnisher Duties ) : The failure to correct the dispute despite remarking it as \" disputed by consumer '' violates the reinvestigation and duty-to-correct provisions of this regulation. \n\nAdditional Information : Reported Status Across Bureaus ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Payment status Current, Remarks Disputed, meets FCRA requirements, No late history. \n\nXXXX : Payment status Current, Remarks Consumer disputed account, No late history.\n\nEquifax : Payment status Current, Remarks Consumer disputes account, BUT XXXX-day late reported for XX/XX/2023. \n\nThis inconsistency is harming my creditworthiness and violates my rights under federal consumer protection laws.\n\nDesired Resolution : Immediate removal of the XXXX-day late remark from XX/XX/2023. \n\nCorrection and synchronization with XXXX and XXXX records.\n\nWritten confirmation from Equifax acknowledging the correction.\n\nReview and enforcement of compliance obligations by CFPB.\n\nPlease investigate this matter and ensure Equifax is held accountable for its violations of FCRA, TILA, and CFPB regulations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-25T03:37:49.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33134","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14295600","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-25T03:37:23.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Late-Payment Reporting and FCRA/TILA Violations by Equifax Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Submitted by : [ Your Full Name ] Consumer <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> against Equifax for reporting false and harmful late-payment information on my credit report concerning my XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> credit card account ( partial account number : XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>"]},"sort":[16.021278,"14295600"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14296457","_score":15.987021,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Inaccurate Late-Payment Reporting and FCRA/TILA Violations by Equifax Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Submitted by : [ Your Full Name ] Consumer Complaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint against Equifax for reporting false and harmful late-payment information on my credit report concerning my XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX credit card account ( partial account number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nIssue Summary : Equifax reports a XXXX-day late payment for XX/XX/2023, while both XXXX and XXXX report no such delinquency and show an uninterrupted OK payment history. This inconsistency clearly indicates a failure to ensure accurate credit reporting.\n\nDespite multiple prior dispute attempts, Equifax has not corrected the error and continues to show Consumer disputes this account information without resolution. This constitutes willful noncompliance with multiple federal laws. \n\nViolations Cited : FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Equifax is required to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. Reporting a late payment that other CRAs confirm never occurred violates this obligation.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Equifax failed to reasonably investigate my dispute and correct inaccurate information, despite being notified.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishers and CRAs must correct or delete information that is incomplete or inaccurate once a dispute is filed. This has not been done.\n\nTILA 15 U.S.C. 1637 and 1666b : Creditors must provide accurate and timely statements. If the delinquency claim is based on creditor reporting, then either Equifax or the furnisher ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX has violated the Truth in Lending Act.\n\n12 CFR 1022.42 CFPB Regulation V ( Furnisher Duties ) : The failure to correct the dispute despite remarking it as \" disputed by consumer '' violates the reinvestigation and duty-to-correct provisions of this regulation. \n\nAdditional Information : Reported Status Across Bureaus ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Payment status Current, Remarks Disputed, meets FCRA requirements, No late history. \n\nXXXX : Payment status Current, Remarks Consumer disputed account, No late history.\n\nEquifax : Payment status Current, Remarks Consumer disputes account, BUT XXXX-day late reported for XX/XX/2023. \n\nThis inconsistency is harming my creditworthiness and violates my rights under federal consumer protection laws.\n\nDesired Resolution : Immediate removal of the XXXX-day late remark from XX/XX/2023. \n\nCorrection and synchronization with XXXX and XXXX records.\n\nWritten confirmation from Equifax acknowledging the correction.\n\nReview and enforcement of compliance obligations by CFPB.\n\nPlease investigate this matter and ensure Equifax is held accountable for its violations of FCRA, TILA, and CFPB regulations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-25T03:37:49.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33134","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14296457","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-25T03:24:14.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Late-Payment Reporting and FCRA/TILA Violations by Equifax Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Submitted by : [ Your Full Name ] Consumer <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> against Equifax for reporting false and harmful late-payment information on my credit report concerning my XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> credit card account ( partial account number : XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>"]},"sort":[15.987021,"14296457"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12907360","_score":15.984819,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative : I am filing a complaint against Capital One regarding the wrongful charge-off and closure of XXXX credit card accounts due to a transaction error that originated internally. I have spent over XXXX months, made XXXX minutes of phone calls, and sent XXXX certified dispute letter ( XX/XX/year>, XXXX, XX/XX/year> ), but Capital One has XXXX to investigate my dispute as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Regulation XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Capital One responded to my certified letter and acknowledged receipt. They claimed they could not locate my account without additional information, even though I am the original account holder. I was asked to submit my full name, prior and current address, last XXXX of my SSN, date of birth, and account numberall of which I have since provided. \n\nThroughout the process, I have been passed between Capital Ones credit card and bank departments over XXXX times, without a single XXXX taking full responsibility for the investigation. I spoke to several Capital One representatives, including : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX I was told a dispute had been opened and closed, but no case number or written summary was ever provided. I repeatedly requested written confirmation of the investigation, and access to a specific person handling the matter, but was denied each time. \n\nDue to Capital Ones inaction, my credit report has been negatively impacted with false charge-offs, which I also disputed with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Each bureau closed my disputes because Capital One refused to provide accurate information or conduct a reinvestigation. \n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure that : Capital One performs a full investigation into the original transaction error. \nThe inaccurate charge-offs are removed from my credit report. \nI receive written documentation of Capital Ones findings and resolution. \nThis ongoing dispute has damaged my creditworthiness and caused significant stress, and I am simply asking for what the law entitles me to : a fair and proper investigation. \n\nSupporting Documents to Attach ( upload scans or PDFs ) : Certified letter to Capital One Capital One responses Any screen captures, call logs, or letters related to your disputes with credit bureaus Proof of previous credit card account numbers","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-09T17:48:54.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"875XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12907360","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-04-09T17:16:24.000Z","state":"NM","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem during payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> a <em>complaint</em> against Capital One regarding the wrongful charge-off and closure of <em>XXXX</em> credit card accounts due to a transaction <em>error</em> that originated internally. I have spent over <em>XXXX</em> months, made <em>XXXX</em> minutes of phone calls, and sent <em>XXXX</em> certified dispute letter ( XX/XX/year>, <em>XXXX</em>, XX/XX/year> ), but Capital One has <em>XXXX</em> to investigate my dispute as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and <em>Regulation</em> <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[15.984819,"12907360"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14295599","_score":15.978942,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Inaccurate Late-Payment Reporting and FCRA/TILA Violations by Equifax Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Submitted by : [ Your Full Name ] Consumer Complaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint against Equifax for reporting false and harmful late-payment information on my credit report concerning my XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX credit card account ( partial account number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nIssue Summary : Equifax reports a XXXX-day late payment for XX/XX/2023, while both XXXX and XXXX report no such delinquency and show an uninterrupted OK payment history. This inconsistency clearly indicates a failure to ensure accurate credit reporting.\n\nDespite multiple prior dispute attempts, Equifax has not corrected the error and continues to show Consumer disputes this account information without resolution. This constitutes willful noncompliance with multiple federal laws. \n\nViolations Cited : FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Equifax is required to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. Reporting a late payment that other CRAs confirm never occurred violates this obligation.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Equifax failed to reasonably investigate my dispute and correct inaccurate information, despite being notified.\n\nFCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Furnishers and CRAs must correct or delete information that is incomplete or inaccurate once a dispute is filed. This has not been done.\n\nTILA 15 U.S.C. 1637 and 1666b : Creditors must provide accurate and timely statements. If the delinquency claim is based on creditor reporting, then either Equifax or the furnisher ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX has violated the Truth in Lending Act.\n\n12 CFR 1022.42 CFPB Regulation V ( Furnisher Duties ) : The failure to correct the dispute despite remarking it as \" disputed by consumer '' violates the reinvestigation and duty-to-correct provisions of this regulation. \n\nAdditional Information : Reported Status Across Bureaus ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Payment status Current, Remarks Disputed, meets FCRA requirements, No late history. \n\nXXXX : Payment status Current, Remarks Consumer disputed account, No late history.\n\nEquifax : Payment status Current, Remarks Consumer disputes account, BUT XXXX-day late reported for XX/XX/2023. \n\nThis inconsistency is harming my creditworthiness and violates my rights under federal consumer protection laws.\n\nDesired Resolution : Immediate removal of the XXXX-day late remark from XX/XX/2023. \n\nCorrection and synchronization with XXXX and XXXX records.\n\nWritten confirmation from Equifax acknowledging the correction.\n\nReview and enforcement of compliance obligations by CFPB.\n\nPlease investigate this matter and ensure Equifax is held accountable for its violations of FCRA, TILA, and CFPB regulations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-25T03:37:51.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33134","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14295599","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-25T03:37:23.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Inaccurate Late-Payment Reporting and FCRA/TILA Violations by Equifax Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Incorrect information on credit report Submitted by : [ Your Full Name ] Consumer <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> against Equifax for reporting false and harmful late-payment information on my credit report concerning my XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> credit card account ( partial account number : XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>"]},"sort":[15.978942,"14295599"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17080814","_score":14.60328,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I filed XXXX separate billing-error disputes with Citibank ( Citi ) for charges from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXr related to a long-term rental that began XX/XX/year>. \nMy corporate account includes a 14 % recurring monthly discount, which failed to appear during booking due to a known system issue. \n\nI immediately contacted XXXX and received a written acknowledgment from their representative confirming that a technical issue prevented the corporate discount from displaying and that the credit would be applied at the end of the rental. Relying on this written assurance, I proceeded with the rental at the higher rate. When the rental ended, XXXX denied the issue existed and refused to issue the promised {$130.00} credit per rental period. \n\nDispute XXXX : XX/XX/year> {$930.00} Dispute XXXX : XX/XX/year> {$930.00} Both disputes involve the same {$130.00} difference caused by XXXX system failure. \n\n\n\nWhat Citi Did Citi initially issued temporary credits for both months but later reversed them. For the first dispute, Citi provided me with the merchants chargeback rebuttalattached herewhich shows XXXX merely asserted that its rates were correct and that the corporate agreement was followed. There is no indication Citi independently reviewed my documentation or compared Sixts rebuttal to my written proof that the discount was never applied. \n\nWhen I called for clarification, a Citi agent told me, the merchant decided not to refund and theres nothing we can do. This response is not compliant with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( e ) ( 3 ) ), which require the bank to conduct an independent, reasonable investigation and to provide a written statement of specific reasons for any denialnot to defer to the merchants refusal. \n\nFor the second dispute, Citi closed the case without explanation, stating only : The documentation or facts provided do not support the billing-error dispute claim.\n\nWhy This Violates the Law The disputed charges constitute a billing error as defined in Reg Z 1026.13 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( an amount not in accordance with the terms of the agreement ). Sixts written assurance to apply the discount later modified the terms of the transaction.\n\nCiti failed to perform a proper investigation, failed to evaluate my evidence, and failed to provide the specific written reasoning required by 1026.13 ( e ) ( 3 ) and 1666 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( B ).\n\nCitis reliance on Sixts rebuttal letter ( attached, 13 pages ) demonstrates that it adopted the merchants narrative without assessing the customer documentation provided.\n\nPattern of Poor Handling This is the second CFPB complaint I have had to file in just six months as a Citi cardholder. That pattern reflects a systemic failure by Citi to comply with FCBA and Regulation Z dispute-handling standards.\n\nRequested Outcome : Require Citi to reopen both disputes and conduct a legally compliant, independent investigation.\n\nRequire Citi to provide copies of all materials relied upon and a written explanation of its findings. \nRestore the {$130.00} credit for each month ( {$260.00} total ) or issue equivalent reimbursement for the improperly denied billing adjustments. \nEnsure Citi implements corrective procedures to prevent future XXXX violations affecting other consumers. \n\n\n\nAttachments Sixt chargeback rebuttal letter provided by Citi Citi denial letters for both disputes Email from XXXX agent acknowledging the system issue and promised credit Rental agreement showing no corporate discount was applied","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-06T12:49:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33607","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17080814","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-11-06T12:33:56.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Citis reliance on Sixts rebuttal letter ( attached, 13 pages ) demonstrates that it adopted the merchants <em>narrative</em> without assessing the customer documentation provided.\n\nPattern of Poor Handling This is the second CFPB <em>complaint</em> I have had to <em>file</em> in just six months as a Citi cardholder. That pattern reflects a systemic failure by Citi to comply with FCBA and <em>Regulation</em> Z dispute-handling standards."]},"sort":[14.60328,"17080814"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16967871","_score":14.499197,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative Citi Retail Services / Home Depot Credit Services Case # : XXXX | Account Ending : XXXX I am filing this complaint because Citi Retail Services ( Home Depot Credit Services ) failed to properly investigate or resolve a verified case of financial fraud. \n\nThe fraudulent purchases were made by XXXX XXXX, who misrepresented himself as my business partner through a fake company structure XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to gain unauthorized access to business credit. He used the card for personal expenses disguised as company purchases. \n\nI was out of state during the time of all transactions, with hotel receipts and employment records verifying that I was not present, did not possess the card, and made no purchases. I did not receive, see, or use a single item or service obtained through this account. \n\nCiti denied my fraud claim based on the assertion that the chip card was used ; therefore, the cardholder is responsible. This determination is both legally and factually incorrect. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) requires a good-faith investigation, and chip-card use does not constitute proof of authorization. Citi failed to verify merchant records, review documentation, or consider my verified absence.\n\nThe account was temporarily credited {$410.00}, then reversed to a {$7400.00} balance despite no evidence of legitimate authorization or business activity. Citis refusal to uphold the credit violated procedural requirements for billing-error investigations and ignored substantial proof of fraud.\n\nThis was not a misunderstanding or partnership dispute it was a deliberate, structured scheme. XXXX XXXX fabricated a business to obtain credit, promising roofing contracts, materials, and customers that never existed. The business generated no income ; all debt fell under my personal credit, and all purchases benefited him personally. \n\nTo confirm the criminal nature of this activity, I consulted with Commonwealths Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is currently overseeing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  case ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Case # XXXX ) and is familiar with him from prior financial-crime and domestic-support cases. After reviewing my evidence, she confirmed that his conduct meets the legal threshold for felony financial fraud and advised me to file formal charges. Law enforcement has directed that this report be filed in person due to the felony-level amount involved. \n\nUnder Virginia law, this conduct constitutes : Embezzlement ( VA Code 18.2-111 ) Conversion of entrusted funds for personal use.\n\nCredit Card Fraud/ Theft ( VA Code 18.2-195 ) Obtaining goods or services through unauthorized use of issued credit.\n\nObtaining Money by False Pretenses ( VA Code 18.2-178 ) Misrepresentation of business legitimacy to acquire funds or credit.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require Citi Retail Services to reopen and properly reinvestigate this case, restore the fraud credit that was improperly reversed, and provide all supporting documentation used to deny my claim ( merchant receipts, POS data, and authorization records ).\n\nAttached documentation includes transaction records, communications, proof of my out-of-state location, and law-enforcement correspondence confirming this as part of an active criminal investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-01T11:33:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"24153","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16967871","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-11-01T10:36:24.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Citi Retail Services / Home Depot Credit Services Case # : <em>XXXX</em> | Account Ending : <em>XXXX</em> I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> because Citi Retail Services ( Home Depot Credit Services ) failed to properly investigate or resolve a verified case of financial fraud. \n\nThe fraudulent purchases were made by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, who misrepresented himself as my business partner through a fake company structure <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> to gain unauthorized access to business credit."]},"sort":[14.499197,"16967871"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20847999","_score":14.322919,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Product/Service : Mortgage Issue : Trouble during the payment process / Struggling to pay mortgage Company : CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LLC . \nComplaint Narrative : I am a homeowner in XXXX  with an FHA-insured mortgage. I am writing to report bad-faith servicing and predatory loss mitigation practices by CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LLC . \nBetween XXXX XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I repeatedly contacted my loan servicer to request evaluation for FHA Loss Mitigation ( specifically a Partial Claim ) before I reached 120 days of delinquency. On multiple occasions, representatives from CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LLC. explicitly told me that I was not eligible for a Partial Claim until I reached at least 120 days of delinquency. I followed their instructions and allowed the loan to reach 120 days of delinquency. However, once I reached that threshold, the servicer denied me for the very program they told me to wait for. \nThey stated I am ineligible for a Partial Claim because I reached a 30 % statutory limit ( set by a previous Partial Claim in XXXX ). This is predatory for the following reasons : 1. Misleading Information : The servicer knew ( or should have known ) the status of my 30 % Partial Claim cap the moment I applied. Telling me to wait until 120 days of delinquency for a program they knew I could never qualify for caused me \" Actual Harm '' in the form of unnecessary late fees, severe credit damage, and a higher interest rate offer. \n2. Failure to Follow Waterfall : Instead of a Standalone Partial Claim or the FHA Payment Supplement ( which I should have been evaluated for ), they are pushing me into a \" Recovery Modification '' that increases my interest rate from 3.5 % to 6.625 % and extends my loan to a XXXX term. After paying this mortgage for 20 years, this \" assistance '' adds 20 years of debt and increases my monthly payment by $ XXXX. \n3. Induced Delinquency : The servicer 's instructions directly induced a deeper delinquency than was necessary, putting my home at greater risk of foreclosure. Desired Resolution : I request that CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LLC. perform a manual audit of my XXXX Partial Claim to verify the exact remaining balance of the 30 % cap. I also request to be evaluated for the FHA Payment Supplement and a Standalone Loan Modification that respects my original 3.5 % interest rate, given that the current delinquency was worsened by the servicers incorrect procedural guidance. I am asking for a \" Notice of Error '' investigation into the representatives who instructed me to wait until 120 days to apply. \n\nI have also filed a notice of error with CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LLC. due to no communication and denying me a in person or live web meeting. \n\nI am writing to formally assert a Notice of Error regarding the servicing of my FHAinsured mortgage, pursuant to 12 C.F.R 1024035 and the continuity of contact requirements under 12 C.F.R 1024.40. \nMy mortgage is currently in default, and I am actively seeking loss mitigation assistance. Your company has failed to provide me with a functional Single Point of Contact ( SPOC ) as required by federal law and HUD Handbook 4000.1. \nSpecifically : Lack of Accessibility : Although I have may or may not have been assigned a ( SPOC ), this individual never answers the phone. When I call, I am redirected to general service agents who do not have specific knowledge of my file. \nFailure of Continuity : Speaking with different representatives each time has led to conflicting information and delays in my application review. \nViolation of Regulation X : Under 12C.F.R 1024.40 ( a ) ( 3 ), if a borrower does not receive a live response from their assigned personnel, the servicer must ensure a live response can be provided in a timely manner. This has not occurred. \nRequest for Correction : I request that you immediately correct this error by : 1. Providing me with a direct phone number and extension for an assigned ( SPOC ) who is actually accessible and authorized to discuss my FHA loss mitigation options.\n\n2. Ensuring that this contact is fully briefed on my current application status to prevent further dual tracking or delays. \n3. Providing a written acknowledgment of this error within ( 5 ) business days, as required by 12 C.F.R 1024.35 ( d ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T15:55:13.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"61109","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20847999","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","date_received":"2026-04-01T15:13:14.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am a homeowner in <em>XXXX</em>  with an FHA-insured mortgage. I am writing to report bad-faith servicing and predatory loss mitigation practices by CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LLC . \nBetween <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, I repeatedly contacted my loan servicer to request evaluation for FHA Loss Mitigation ( specifically a Partial <em>Claim</em> ) before I reached 120 days of delinquency."]},"sort":[14.322919,"20847999"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22120995","_score":14.287684,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My FHA-insured mortgage on my primary residence was originally serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX approved me for an FHA Special Forbearance Plan covering 12 monthly installments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Under the plan, my contractual monthly Total Payment Due was {$0.00}. XXXX confirmed in writing that no late charges would be assessed and that I would be reported to credit bureaus as current and in a forbearance plan. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a written notice confirming that my FHA Special Forbearance Plan was complete. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a formal written notice stating : \" We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. '' The notice expressly acknowledged that XXXX was prohibited from initiating any foreclosure-related notice or filing while the complete application was under review, and committed to a decision no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \nBefore XXXX completed the loss mitigation evaluation, my loan was transferred to Carrington Mortgage Services , LLC . The pending modification review had not been completed by XXXX before transfer. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( k ), Carrington was required as the transferee servicer to honor the complete loss mitigation application that XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, and to continue the evaluation rather than restart or cancel it.\n\nCarrington has since taken the following actions, each of which I believe violates federal mortgage servicing law and FHA loss mitigation requirements : ( 1 ) Carrington demanded lump-sum repayment of the entire forborne amount and threatened foreclosure. FHA loss mitigation guidance under HUD Handbook 4000.1 does not permit servicers to require lump-sum repayment of forborne amounts as a precondition for bringing an FHA-insured loan current. Multiple FHA loss mitigation options including the COVID-19 Recovery Modification, FHA-HAMP, Standalone Partial Claim, and Recovery Standalone Partial Claim must be evaluated before foreclosure can proceed.\n\n( 2 ) Carrington cancelled my complete loss mitigation application without providing any written notice or written decision. During a phone call, Carrington informed me that my application had been cancelled because they had attempted to call me for a \" second attestation '' and I did not answer. I never received any written request from Carrington for additional documentation, any written request for an attestation, or any written notice of cancellation. This violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ), which requires a written decision stating the specific reason for any denial of a complete loss mitigation application. It also violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ), which requires the servicer to provide written notice specifying what additional information is needed and a reasonable deadline to provide it. A missed phone call is not a permitted basis for cancellation under Regulation X.\n\n( 3 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Carrington issued a Maryland Notice of Intent to Foreclose under Maryland Real Property Article 7-105.1 ( c ). The notice lists my Date of Default as XX/XX/XXXX a date that falls within my active XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan, during which my contractual monthly payment was {$0.00}. The notice claims my loan is 269 days past due and demands {$21000.00} to cure. Carrington appears to have re-characterized forbearance-period suspended installments as delinquent payments after taking over servicing, contrary to the written terms of the XXXX forbearance plan and contrary to XXXXXXXX XXXX written confirmation that I would be reported as current and in a forbearance plan. Carrington also elected not to offer prefile mediation. Under the Notice of Intent to Foreclose, a foreclosure action ( Order to Docket ) may be filed in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX. \n( 4 ) Carrington has not provided me with a single point of contact for my loss mitigation file, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.40.\n\n( 5 ) Carrington has engaged in conduct consistent with prohibited \" dual tracking '' under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ) and ( g ) by issuing a Notice of Intent to Foreclose while a complete loss mitigation application received by the prior servicer on XX/XX/XXXX should have remained pending under federal law.\n\nThe cumulative effect of Carrington 's actions is that an improperly calculated default has been used to initiate Maryland foreclosure proceedings against my primary residence, despite the existence of written documentation from the prior servicer establishing both ( a ) an active forbearance plan with {$0.00} contractually due during the disputed default period, and ( b ) a complete loss mitigation application that was pending evaluation at the time of servicing transfer.\n\nI have attached the following supporting documentation : XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan Approval dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Forbearance Plan Completion Notice dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Post-Forbearance Acknowledgment of Complete Application dated XX/XX/XXXX ; and Carrington Notice of Intent to Foreclose dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nI am simultaneously filing a complaint with the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation and am submitting a Mortgage Assistance Application and formal cover letter directly to Carrington requesting reinstatement of my loss mitigation evaluation as of XX/XX/XXXX. \nGiven that Carrington may file an Order to Docket in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX, I respectfully request expedited review of this complaint. \n\nA few things this narrative does deliberately It opens with XXXXXXXX XXXX written record, not your hardship. Reviewers triage hundreds of complaints. The strongest hook isn't \" I'm in trouble '' it's \" the prior servicer 's written documents contradict the current servicer 's actions. '' That framing makes the violation pattern obvious from the first paragraph. \nIt quotes XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX letter directly. That single sentence \" We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX '' is the most powerful sentence in your entire file. Burying it would be a mistake. Quoting it ensures the reviewer reads it.\n\nIt numbers the violations. Reviewers love enumerated lists because they can map each numbered item to a specific regulatory citation and require Carrington to respond to each one. A flowing narrative is easier to wave away ; a numbered list is not.\n\nIt puts the math dispute front and center. The XX/XX/XXXX default date during a documented forbearance period is the single most exploitable factual error in Carrington 's case. It appears twice once in item ( 3 ) and once in the closing paragraph to ensure no reviewer misses it.\n\nIt closes with the urgency hook. The XX/XX/XXXX potential filing date is the single most important fact for triage prioritization. Putting it in the final sentence guarantees the reviewer sees it when deciding queue priority.\n\nNo personal info, per the form 's instruction. No name, no address, no loan numbers, no SSN. The CFPB form collects all of that separately. This field is pure narrative.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-12T16:48:27.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"210XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22120995","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","date_received":"2026-05-12T15:52:20.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am simultaneously <em>filing</em> a <em>complaint</em> with the Maryland Commissioner of Financial <em>Regulation</em> and am submitting a Mortgage Assistance Application and formal cover letter directly to Carrington requesting reinstatement of my loss mitigation evaluation as of XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>. \nGiven that Carrington may <em>file</em> an Order to Docket in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, I respectfully request expedited review of this <em>complaint</em>."]},"sort":[14.287684,"22120995"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21781710","_score":13.780198,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Homeowner : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Via XXXX, La XXXX, CA XXXX Servicer : PHH Mortgage XXXX Onity XXXX Account XXXX : [ Insert your loan number here ] NARRATIVE SUMMARY I am filing this formal complaint against my mortgage servicer, previously named PHH Mortgage, which has very recently rebranded itself to Onity XXXX, formerly known as Ocwen Financial Corporation, for administrative negligence, fraudulent tax reporting, and unauthorized access to my banking funds. The servicer issued a stop payment on a property tax check totaling over XXXX but reported that amount as paid to the IRS on my XXXX Form 1098. This falsified reporting led to an inaccurate inflation of my mortgage principal and the referral of my account to a collection agency for a debt that never existed and monies in excess of approximately XXXX, which did not leave their holdings. Despite sending copies of paid property taxes with a clear identification of payments made from my bank account, letters from XXXX XXXX XXXX collector stating that Onity did indeed send a check, however the check was sent in XXXX of XXXX not in XXXX. Additionally the letter from the county states the the check received was considered as defaulted as it had a STOP payment. \n\nDETAILED VIOLATIONS XXXX. FRAUDULENT TAX REPORTING AND ESCROW ERRORS In late XXXX, the servicer claimed they would manage my property taxes. They issued an official XXXX XXXX XXXX stating they disbursed XXXX in real estate taxes. However the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has confirmed in writing that the servicer placed a stop payment on the check, which was not received in XXXX but in XXXX. Because of this deception my mortgage principal was wrongfully increased to XXXX for funds never disbursed to XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO NOTICES OF ERROR I have sent XXXX separate formal Notices of Error between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Under RESPA Regulation X the servicer is required to acknowledge and resolve these notices. They have ignored all three written communications and have failed to correct the negative escrow balance of approximately XXXX which stems entirely from their own stop payment order. \n\nXXXX. IMMINENT RISK OF FORECLOSURE AND DAMAGES If I had relied on the inaccurate tax Form 1098, which PHH sent me claiming falsely that they paid the amount of XXXX on my behalf toward XXXX XXXX XXXX property taxes, my home would have proceeded to public auction in XX/XX/XXXX. I was forced to use my own workers ' compensation settlement funds to pay XXXX XXXX directly to save my home. I have incurred thousands in interest and penalties from XXXX XXXX due to the servicer 's negligence not to mention the stress associated with having to come up with an amount of XXXX within less than 30 days. \n\nXXXX. UNAUTHORIZED BANK ACCESS The servicer attempted multiple unauthorized ACH withdrawals from my XXXX XXXX account, in the month of XXXX XXXX, in an attempt to pay what they allegedly are owed with the phantom escrow fund for almost XXXX, and this month they have tried to withdraw over XXXX unauthorized money from my checking account at XXXX XXXX. The latter was immediately not approved as XXXX XXXX is not honoring withdrawals generated by Onity, and they were blocked only through bank intervention. The first unauthorized XXXX ach withdrawal was returned to my account as Onity was unable to provide authorization for a transaction for that amount. \n\nREQUESTED RESOLUTION I request that the servicer immediately cease all collection activity. They must provide a corrected XXXX Form 1098 to the IRS and me. They must perform an escrow re-analysis to remove the negative balance and revert my mortgage principal to the correct amount. I also request reimbursement for the tax penalties caused by their neglect despite being told several times that they did not make a payment of XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX and forwarded letters of stop payment order. \n\nFurthermore, I am seeking full restitution for the following damages under RESPA ( Regulation X ), the XXXX Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California Housing Laws : Correction of the XXXX Form 1098 : An immediate corrected filing to the IRS to reflect the actual tax status. \n\nFinancial Reimbursement : Recovery of all tax penalties, interest, and late fees incurred as a direct result of the servicer 's Stop Payment order.\n\nPrincipal Adjustment : Immediate removal of the {$28000.00} in \" phantom debt '' added to my mortgage principal.\n\nEscrow Correction : Removal of the {$28000.00} negative balance. \n\nRemoval of negative credit remarks made to the XXXX reporting credit bureaus. \n\nStatutory Damages : I reserve the right to seek statutory damages for the servicer 's failure to respond to XXXX ( XXXX ) formal Notices of Error and for unauthorized attempts to access my private bank funds via ACH.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-01T06:50:40.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"92037","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21781710","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2026-05-01T06:02:08.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Homeowner : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : <em>XXXX</em> Via <em>XXXX</em>, La <em>XXXX</em>, CA <em>XXXX</em> Servicer : PHH Mortgage <em>XXXX</em> Onity <em>XXXX</em> Account <em>XXXX</em> : [ Insert your loan number here ] <em>NARRATIVE</em> SUMMARY I am <em>filing</em> this formal <em>complaint</em> against my mortgage servicer, previously named PHH Mortgage, which has very recently rebranded itself to Onity <em>XXXX</em>, formerly known as Ocwen Financial Corporation, for administrative negligence, fraudulent tax reporting, and unauthorized access to my banking funds."]},"sort":[13.780198,"21781710"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21126518","_score":13.2927885,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative : Supplemental Filing Company : Chime Financial , Inc./ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nClaim ID : XXXX Account : Ending in XXXX Dispute Type : Debit, Non-Receipt of Goods or Services Amount : {$900.00} Date Error Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Prior CFPB Complaint : XXXX Summary I am filing this supplemental complaint to document concerns regarding Chime Financial and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 's handling of Claim ID XXXX under Regulation XXXX This complaint addresses four areas : ( 1 ) denial of provisional credit based on a legal standard not found in Regulation E, ( 2 ) a documentation request issued on the final day of the investigation through a mechanism that expired before it could reasonably be acted upon, ( 3 ) a denial issued after the 90-day investigation window had closed, and ( 4 ) failure to provide investigation documents upon request. I am presenting these facts for the Bureau 's evaluation in the context of Chime 's prior enforcement history. \nComplete Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX : I initiated a {$900.00} debit card transaction to Hard Rock Bet. The service associated with this transaction was not delivered. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ) : I reported the error to Chime and filed Dispute # XXXX under the category of Non-Receipt of Goods or Services. Chime assigned the dispute and began its investigation.\n\nWithin 10 business days : No provisional credit was issued to my account. When I inquired about provisional credit, I was told by a Chime representative that provisional credit was not available because the dispute was not classified as fraud. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  : I called Chime to check the status of the dispute. The call lasted 33 minutes before being disconnected. I was again told that no provisional credit would be issued and that the dispute was not eligible because it was not a fraud claim. I have a screenshot of the dispute still showing as open at this time. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I called Chime back after the disconnection. This second call lasted 11 minutes. The same position was communicated : no provisional credit because the dispute was not classified as fraud. No documentation or information was requested from me during either call or at any prior point in the investigation. This is the second occasion on which Chime communicated this incorrect legal standard to me. I have phone records documenting both calls. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  : I called Chime to check the status of the dispute on the final day of the 90-day investigation window. This call lasted 12 minutes. On every prior call throughout the dispute, I was routed directly to the dispute team. On this call, I was routed only to a general customer service representative who could not access dispute details or provide specific information about the claim. The representative stated : ( 1 ) no resolution had been issued, ( 2 ) if I did not receive a resolution by end of day, I should call back XX/XX/XXXX to 'discuss a new timeline for a resolution, ' and ( 3 ) the transaction was not eligible for provisional credit because it was not a fraud dispute. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  : I made XXXX additional calls to Chime between XXXX XXXX   and XXXX PM attempting to reach the dispute team or get further information. Call durations were 1, 1, 1, 3, and 10 minutes respectively. Most were disconnected or resulted in short interactions with no substantive information provided. My phone records document all six calls on this date. I note that the change in call routing on the deadline date, and the inability to reach anyone with dispute authority across six separate attempts, was a departure from my experience on every prior call. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Day XXXX ) : Within minutes of my last call ending at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, Chime sent an email titled 'Re : Secure Documentation Request for Dispute ID XXXX ' requesting that I upload supporting documents via a secure link. The email stated that the upload link expires one hour after generation. I note the proximity in timing between my final call and this request. This was the first and only request for documentation in the entire 90-day investigation. No documentation had been requested at any point during the prior 89 days. The link had expired by the time the email could reasonably be read and acted upon. \nXX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I filed a CFPB complaint ( the prior complaint referenced above ) documenting the missed provisional credit and the approaching deadline. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I captured a screenshot of the Chime app confirming Dispute # XXXX was still showing as 'In progress ' under the XXXX ' tab. No resolution had been issued. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Day 90 ) : I captured an additional screenshot confirming the dispute was still showing as 'In progress ' and 'Open. ' No resolution had been issued with fewer than 30 minutes remaining in Day 90. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 91 ) : I captured a screenshot of the Chime app confirming Dispute # XXXX was still showing as 'In progress ' under the 'Open ' tab. The 90-day investigation window had closed. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 91 ) : I captured additional screenshots. The dispute was still showing 'In progress ' and 'Open. ' The 'Closed ' tab showed 'No past disputes, ' confirming no determination had been made. \nXX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX AM ET ( Day 91 ) : Chime sent an email from XXXX with the subject 'Important Account Information ' issuing a final determination denying the claim. The denial stated that Chime 'concluded no error occurred \" based on \" a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific findings were provided. No evidence was cited. No explanation of how Chime determined no error occurred was included. The denial was issued approximately XXXX hours after requesting documentation through an already-expired link, without waiting for or referencing any response to that request. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : I sent a written request to XXXX citing 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) and requesting all documents relied upon in the investigation and determination. Chime responded with a generic auto-reply directing me to call ( XXXX ) XXXX or contact them through the app. No documents were provided. No substantive response was given. The auto-reply did not acknowledge the document request, did not provide a timeline for production, and did not identify who would handle it.\n\nViolation 1 : Failure to Issue Provisional Credit Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), when a financial institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumer 's account for the full amount of the alleged error within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. This requirement applies to all error types covered by Reg E, including non-receipt of goods or services. There are only two narrow exceptions : ( A ) the institution requested written confirmation of an oral notice and did not receive it within 10 business days, or ( B ) the account is subject to Regulation T ( securities margin accounts ). Neither exception applies here.\n\nChime did not issue provisional credit for this {$900.00} dispute. When I inquired about provisional credit on at least three separate occasions ( within 10 business days, on XX/XX/XXXX across two calls totaling 44 minutes, and again on XX/XX/XXXX ), I was told by Chime representatives that provisional credit was not available because the dispute was not classified as fraud. This standard does not appear in Regulation E. The regulation does not limit provisional credit to fraud or unauthorized transaction disputes. The provisional credit requirement under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) applies whenever the institution extends its investigation beyond 10 business days, regardless of the error type.\n\nThe consistency of this response across three separate occasions and multiple representatives sugg\nests this may reflect a policy or training issue rather than an isolated error by a single employee.\n\nChime 's refusal to issue provisional credit while extending the investigation to 91 days caused me direct financial harm. I was deprived of access to {$900.00} for the entire duration of the investigation.\n\nViolation 2 : Investigation Exceeded 90-Day Deadline Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii ), the investigation period for POS debit card transactions may be extended to 90 days ( in place of 45 days ). Chime 's investigation began on XX/XX/XXXX. The 90th day was XX/XX/XXXX. \nAs of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), the dispute was still showing as 'In progress ' and 'Open ' in the Chime app. Screenshots captured at XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Day 91 ) confirmed the dispute remained open past midnight. The XXXX ' tab showed 'No past disputes ' at XXXX XXXX. The denial was not issued until approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This means the investigation was completed and the determination issued after the 90-day regulatory window had closed.\n\nFurthermore, because Chime never issued provisional credit as required under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), Chime was not entitled to the extended investigation period in the first place. The 45-day and 90-day extensions are conditioned on the institution provisionally crediting the consumer 's account. Without provisional credit, the investigation should have been completed within 10 business days. \nViolation 3 : Documentation Request on Day 90 Chime conducted its investigation for 90 calendar days without requesting any documentation from me. No request for information, evidence, receipts, correspondence, or any other supporting material was made at any point during the first 89 days.\n\nOn Day 90 of the investigation ( XX/XX/XXXX ), at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Chime sent its first and only request for supporting documentation via a secure upload link that expires one hour after generation. Fewer than XXXX hours later, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, Chime issued its final determination denying the claim. The denial provided no specific findings and did not reference any response or lack of response to the documentation request. \nI present the following timeline for the XXXX 's consideration. A documentation request was sent at XXXX XXXX  on the final day of the investigation window, through a link that expires in one hour. A denial was issued during overnight hours fewer than 8 hours later. No documentation had been requested during the prior 89 days. The denial did not reference any response or lack of response to the documentation request. I respectfully submit that this sequence raises questions about whether the documentation request was part of a substantive investigation or served another purpose.\n\nViolation 4 : Failure to Provide Investigation Documents Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), when a financial institution determines no error occurred, its report must include a written explanation of its findings and must note the consumer 's right to request the documents relied upon. Upon request, the institution must promptly provide copies. \nChime 's denial email did reference this right. On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent a written request to XXXX citing 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) and requesting all documents relied upon in the investigation and determination. Chime responded with a generic auto-reply directing me to call ( XXXX ) XXXX or contact them through the app. No documents have been provided. No substantive response was given. \nAdditionally, the denial email may not satisfy the written explanation requirement under 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The email states only that Chime 'concluded no error occurred \" based on \" a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific evidence was cited, no investigative steps were described, and no reasoning was provided for how Chime reached its conclusion. I respectfully ask the Bureau to evaluate whether this meets the standard for a written explanation of findings. \nPattern of Conduct The conduct described in this complaint is consistent with a documented pattern of Regulation E and consumer protection violations by Chime Financial : CFPB Consent Order, XX/XX/XXXX ( File No. XXXX ) : The Bureau found that Chime engaged in unfair practices by failing to timely refund consumer balances after account closures, with thousands of consumers waiting more than 90 days. Chime was ordered to pay a {$3.00} million civil money penalty and at least {$1.00} million in consumer redress. The consent order explicitly states that the Bureau may use these practices 'to establish a pattern or practice of violations ' in future enforcement.\n\nCalifornia DFPI Consent Order, XX/XX/XXXX : Chime was fined {$2.00} XXXX by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation for unfair and untimely handling of consumer complaints. Chime was ordered to improve customer service standards, ensure 24/7 support, and report to the DFPI annually for two years.\n\nCFPB Complaint Database : Chime has been the subject of thousands of consumer complaints filed with the CFPB. Reporting from XXXX documented XXXX CFPB complaints between XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX alone, with nearly XXXX involving locked accounts. Consumers have also filed over XXXX complaints with the Better Business Bureau. \nThe facts of my case reflect a similar pattern. Provisional credit was denied based on a legal standard not found in Regulation E. Documentation was requested on the final day of the investigation through a link that expired within one hour. The investigation exceeded the regulatory deadline. Investigation documents were requested and have not been provided. I respectfully ask the Bureau to evaluate whether these facts, taken together, reflect compliance with the requirements of Regulation E.\n\nRelief Requested I request that the CFPB : Investigate Chime 's practice of denying provisional credit for non-fraud Reg E disputes, which appears to be a systemic misapplication of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ).\n\nRequire Chime and XXXX XXXX XXXX  to promptly provide the investigation documents I requested under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nEvaluate whether the documentation request and denial timeline in this case constitutes a good-faith investigation under Regulation E.\n\nEvaluate whether the denial, issued on Day 91 after the 90-day investigation window closed, constitutes a valid determination under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii ).\n\nConsider this complaint in the context of the existing 2024 CFPB consent order and California DFPI consent order, and Chime 's documented pattern of consumer protection violations. \nFiled by : XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-10T13:28:36.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48316","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21126518","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-04-10T12:44:13.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : Supplemental <em>Filing</em> Company : Chime Financial , Inc./ <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \n<em>Claim</em> ID : <em>XXXX</em> Account : Ending in <em>XXXX</em> Dispute Type : Debit, Non-Receipt of Goods or Services Amount : {$900.00} Date <em>Error</em> Reported : XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> Prior CFPB <em>Complaint</em> : <em>XXXX</em> Summary I am <em>filing</em> this supplemental <em>complaint</em> to document concerns regarding Chime Financial and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[13.2927885,"21126518"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19339380","_score":13.140187,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"1. Incoming Call Appearing as Wells Fargo Date : XX/XX/XXXX Incoming number : XXXX Call start time : XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Call duration : XXXX minutes ( ended at XXXXXX/XX/XXXXI received a call from XXXX, a number that appeared to belong to Wells Fargo Mortgage. \nThe call lasted XXXX minutes, ending at XXXXXX/XX/XXXX \nDuring the call, I was coached on what to say and instructed to tell the bank the withdrawal was for paying a contractor. \nI was under pressure and being directed throughout the call. \nI later reported this call as suspected fraud to Wells Fargo, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. {$18000.00} Cash Withdrawal While Under Duress Date : XX/XX/XXXX Withdrawal time : XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Amount : {$18000.00} Location : Wells Fargo branch on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WY Teller : XXXX While still on the call from XXXX, I went to the XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo branch. \nXXXX XXXX processed a cash withdrawal of {$18000.00} at XX/XX/XXXX \nI was actively being coached during the withdrawal. \nI was instructed to give a scripted explanation ( contractor ).\n\nBecause the transaction was made under deception and pressure, it is not considered authorized under Regulation E, even though I physically made the withdrawal. \n\n\n-- - 2A. Prior Pershing Branch Deposit Error ( Context for Why the Scam Felt Plausible ) Date : Over 10 years prior Location : Same XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo branch Transaction : Insurance settlement deposit from XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Branch shorted the deposit by several XXXX dollars More than a decade earlier, the same XXXX XXXX branch shorted me several XXXX dollars when I deposited a large insurance check from XX/XX/XXXX for a totaled vehicle. \nI had to return to the branch with the check stub to get the deposit corrected. \nBecause of this real, documented past error at the same branch, the scammers claim that the XXXX branch was under FBI investigation felt plausible to me. \nThis prior experience directly influenced why the scammers narrative landed in a way that felt believable. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Immediate Fraud Reporting to Wells Fargo Date : XX/XX/XXXX Time : XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Call duration : XXXX minutes Number dialed : XXXX At XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX minutes after the call ended, I called XXXX. \nI reported the fraud immediately. \n\n\nAdditional Wells Fargo Fraud Reporting Calls ( Same Night ) Later that evening, I also contacted : XXXX ( Wells Fargo Fraud Department ) XXXX ( Wells Fargo Customer Service ) I reported the fraud to multiple Wells Fargo departments on the night it occurred. \n\n-- - XXXX. Report Filed With the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Time : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX number : XXXX After contacting Wells Fargos fraud department, I contacted the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. \nI filed an official report. \nI provided Wells Fargo with the case number XXXX that same night. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. IC3.gov Federal Complaint Filed Date : XX/XX/XXXX Time submitted : XXXXXX/XX/XXXXEST Submission ID : XXXX At XXXX XX/XX/XXXXEST, I filed a federal cybercrime complaint with IC3.gov. \nThis filing documented : The suspicious call from XXXX The coaching and pressure The fraudulent {$18000.00} withdrawal The timeline of events I informed Wells Fargo that an IC3 complaint had been filed. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Large Cash Deposit at ApproximatelXX/XX/XXXXon XX/XX/XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Approximate time : XXXX XX/XX/XXXXAmount : {$17000.00} Location : Wells Fargo ATM on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WY XXXX : None ATM deposit At approximately XX/XX/XXXX I made a {$17000.00} cash deposit at the Wells Fargo ATM on XXXX XXXX. \nThe ATM did not accept two old {$100.00} bills, which I attempted to deposit. \nThe remaining {$17000.00} was accepted by the ATM and recorded by Wells Fargos systems. \nThis sameday ATM deposit followed by a sameday inperson withdrawal at a different branch is a known fraud pattern that banks are required to detect. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. XXXX Visit on XX/XX/XXXX With Personal Banker XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Time : XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Location : Wells Fargo branch ( first business day after XXXX closure ) Staff : XXXX XXXX XXXX, Personal Banker Because the branch was closed on XX/XX/XXXX for XXXX, the earliest possible inperson visit was XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XX/XX/XXXXwhen the branch reopened. \nI arrived at XX/XX/XXXX, the moment the branch opened, and met with Personal Banker XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis appointment was the first available opportunity to address the fraud in person after the holiday closure. \nI informed him of the fraudulent withdrawal, the suspicious call, and the events of XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis demonstrates that I acted immediately and responsibly once the branch reopened. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Wells Fargos Failure to Provide Required ATM Evidence Date Range : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo failed to produce multiple forms of required ATM evidence, including : ATM video footage Cash cassette totals ATM cashhandling logs Electronic journals ( EJ logs ) Access logs Chainofcustody documentation Error codes or sensor data Reconciliation reports These records are standard, required, and routinely produced in ATMrelated investigations. \nWells Fargos inability or refusal to provide them is a major procedural failure. \n\n-- - XXXX. Wells Fargos Initial Investigation Failure Date : Late XXXX Early XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo closed the investigation without contacting me.\n\nI was not asked for evidence, clarification, or a rebuttal.\n\nRequired Regulation E disputehandling procedures were not followed. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. First CFPB Complaint Filed Date : XX/XX/XXXX I filed my first CFPB complaint due to Wells Fargos failure to investigate properly. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. First CFPB Complaint Closed Date : XX/XX/XXXX The CFPB marked the first complaint closed. \nI was not given an opportunity to provide consumer feedback or rebut Wells Fargos response. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Search Warrant Issued and Served on Wells Fargo Date : XX/XX/XXXX Agency : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Detective : Detective Young Wells Fargo internal reference number : XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, Detective XXXX from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX served a search warrant on Wells Fargo. \nWells Fargo confirmed receipt of the warrant. \nWells Fargo provided XXXX XXXX with their internal reference number : XXXX. \nThis proves Wells Fargo was fully aware of the investigation and obligated to preserve and produce all relevant evidence. \nDespite this, Wells Fargo did not incorporate the warrant or its evidence requirements into their investigation. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Second CFPB Complaint Filed Date : XX/XX/XXXX I filed a second CFPB complaint due to continued procedural failures and XXXX XXXX failure to consider involvement by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Second CFPB Complaint Closed Date : XX/XX/XXXX The CFPB marked the second complaint closed. \nAgain, I was not given an opportunity to rebut Wells Fargos response. \nWells Fargo still did not address : The call from XXXX The duress The coaching The XXXX deposit + withdrawal The XX/XX/XXXX warrant The missing ATM evidence Regulation XXXX requirements -- - XXXX. Third CFPB Complaint Filed ( Current Active Case ) Date : XX/XX/XXXX I filed a third CFPB complaint due to : XXXX premature closures Contradictory statements Failure to request evidence Failure to consider involvement by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to follow riskmitigation procedures Failure to follow Regulation XXXX requirements Failure to provide required ATM evidence XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX contacted me, indicating elevated review. \nI am currently awaiting their XXXX response. \n\n\n-- - XXXX. Ongoing Harm Date Range : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX * * Financial loss totaling {$17000.00} remains unresolved. \nMy automatically deposited paychecks did not reach my new Wells Fargo account, despite being told they would transfer correctly. \nAs a result, I had no access to my paycheck during the XXXX holiday, causing significant financial hardship. \nWells Fargos premature account closures created an additional risk : if my closed accounts do not remain open and accessible, I will not be able to retrieve the transaction records I need for tax filing, despite informing Wells Fargo that I require access for this purpose. \nContinued financial instability due to Wells Fargos failure to correct the error.\n\nSignificant time spent documenting the issue and filing multiple CFPB complaints.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-08T13:37:14.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"82009","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19339380","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-02-08T13:21:33.000Z","state":"WY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Because of this real, documented past <em>error</em> at the same branch, the scammers <em>claim</em> that the <em>XXXX</em> branch was under FBI investigation felt plausible to me. \nThis prior experience directly influenced why the scammers <em>narrative</em> landed in a way that felt believable. \n\n\n-- - <em>XXXX</em>. Immediate Fraud Reporting to Wells Fargo Date : XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> Time : XXXXXX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> Call duration : <em>XXXX</em> minutes Number dialed : <em>XXXX</em> At XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX minutes after the call ended, I called <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[13.140187,"19339380"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15494710","_score":13.015786,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CONSUMER COMPLAINT TO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Complaint ID : [ To be assigned by CFPB ] I. CONSUMER IDENTITY AND CONTACT INFORMATION Complainant : XXXX XXXX Preferred Contact Method : Email Email Address : XXXX Location : XXXX, Nevada Authorization and Privacy Disclosure : By submitting this complaint, I authorize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to send my complaint and supporting documentation to the company identified below. I understand that the CFPB will share my complaint with the company for response, and that information I provide may be subject to publication in the CFPBs Consumer Complaint Database with personally identifiable information removed. I certify that the information provided in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. \nII. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION INFORMATION Institution Name : Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . Claims Department Institution Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Institution RSSD ID : XXXX Dispute Reference Number : # XXXX Account Type : Personal Checking Account with Debit Card Ending in XXXX Transaction Amount in Dispute : {$1000.00} XXXX. PRODUCT/SERVICE TYPE AND ISSUE CATEGORY Product/Service Type : Bank account or service Sub-product : Debit card Issue Type : Problem with a purchase Sub-issue : Dispute handling and resolution process Secondary Issue : Failure to provide adequate information about dispute status and investigation process IV. DETAILED NARRATIVE OF EVENTS A. Original Transaction Details On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased an e-scooter from seller XXXX  through XXXX website for {$1000.00}, using my Wells Fargo debit card. At the time of purchase, I contacted XXXX customer service and was explicitly informed that the e-scooter could be returned to a physical XXXX store if necessary. \nB. Attempted Return and Seller/Retailer Failures On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to return the e-scooter to a physical XXXX store as previously advised. However, contrary to the information provided during my XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  call, store personnel informed me that this item was not returnable in-store due to its size and weight ( XXXX pounds ). This contradictory information began a series of unsuccessful attempts to facilitate a return. \nFollowing the in-store rejection, I immediately contacted both XXXX and the seller XXXX via email and seven plus calls with XXXX requesting return instructions and freight pickup arrangements, as the e-scooters size and weight make standard shipping impossible. Despite multiple email communications beginning XX/XX/XXXX, and continuing through XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX has consistently refused to arrange for the freight pickup necessary to facilitate the return for unfoldable/defective product. \nXXXX initially promised to arrange a XXXX  freight pickup but subsequently failed to fulfill this commitment, leaving me with no viable means to return the product. This situation is further complicated by my documented medical condition, as I have a left shoulder injury that restricts me from lifting more than XXXX pounds, making personal transportation of a XXXX e-scooter physically impossible and medically contraindicated. \nC. Wells Fargo Dispute Filing and Handling Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a formal dispute with Wells Fargo ( dispute # XXXX ) regarding this transaction. I provided Wells Fargos claims department with comprehensive documentation including : 1. Email communications with XXXX demonstrating their refusal to facilitate a return 2. Email communications with XXXX showing their failure to arrange the promised freight pickup 3. Medical documentation ( appropriately redacted ) confirming my lifting restrictions 4. A transcript of my XXXX XXXX XXXX  call with XXXX customer service representative XXXX, who explicitly advised me to proceed with the Wells Fargo dispute based on the evidence I had compiled Despite providing this extensive documentation, Wells Fargo has failed to provide adequate information regarding the status of my dispute investigation, the evidence they have gathered from all parties, or the criteria they are using to evaluate my claim. While Wells Fargo has acknowledged that an investigation is ongoing, they have not provided a timeline for resolution or a comprehensive explanation of their investigation process. \nV. WELLS FARGOS DISPUTE HANDLING DEFICIENCIES A. Failure to Provide Adequate Investigation Status Information Since filing my dispute between XXXX XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo has failed to provide transparent and detailed information regarding : 1. The current status of the investigation beyond acknowledging it is ongoing 2. The specific evidence they have gathered from me, the seller XXXX, and XXXX 3. How this evidence is being evaluated in relation to applicable regulations and bank policies 4. The anticipated timeline for investigation completion 5. The specific criteria being used to determine the outcome of my dispute B. Lack of Transparency in Evidence Evaluation Process Wells Fargo has not disclosed : 1. Whether they have contacted XXXX and XXXX to verify my account of events 2. How they are evaluating the documented evidence of the sellers and Walmarts failure to facilitate a return 3. Whether they are considering my medical documentation demonstrating physical inability to return the item without freight pickup 4. The weight they are giving to XXXX customer service representative XXXX explicit recommendation to pursue this dispute C. Insufficient Communication Regarding Decision Criteria Wells Fargo has failed to provide : 1. Clear explanation of the standards and criteria being applied to my dispute 2. Information about how they evaluate disputes involving third-party sellers on e-commerce platforms 3. Transparency regarding how they assess situations where physical return of merchandise is impossible due to seller/retailer failure to facilitate return logistics 4. Explanation of how medical limitations affecting return capability are factored into their decision-making process VI. REGULATORY VIOLATIONS AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES A. Electronic Fund Transfer Act Requirements Wells Fargos handling of this dispute appears to violate several provisions of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ), including : 1. Failure to provide adequate information about the investigation process 2. Lack of transparency regarding evidence collection and evaluation 3. Insufficient communication regarding investigation status and timeline B. Regulation E Investigation Standards Under 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ), financial institutions are required to : 1. Conduct a thorough investigation of alleged errors 2. Review all relevant information provided by the consumer 3. Determine whether an error occurred 4. Report the results of the investigation to the consumer 5. Provide copies of documentation relied upon in reaching their determination, if requested Wells Fargos failure to provide comprehensive information about their investigation process and the evidence they are considering appears to fall short of these regulatory requirements. \nC. Consumer Financial Protection Act Obligations The Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX establishes standards for transparent, fair, and responsive handling of consumer financial disputes. Wells Fargos lack of transparency and failure to provide adequate information about the dispute investigation process may constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under this legislation. \nVII. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION I have provided Wells Fargo with the following documentation, which I am prepared to submit to the CFPB upon request : 1. Email communications with seller HLOIE demonstrating their refusal to facilitate a return 2. Email communications with XXXX showing their failure to arrange the promised freight pickup 3. Transcript of my XXXX XXXX XXXX call with XXXX customer service representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Medical documentation ( appropriately redacted ) confirming my lifting restrictions of no more than XXXX pounds XXXX. Wells Fargo XXXX acknowledging the ongoing investigation 6. Documentation of my attempts to resolve this issue directly with Wells Fargos claims department between XX/XX/XXXX, and the date of this complaint VIII. DESIRED RESOLUTION AND CFPB ACTION REQUESTED A. Specific Four-Page Investigation Report Requirement I respectfully request that the CFPB require Wells Fargo to provide me with a comprehensive four-page investigation report detailing : 1. All evidence gathered from me, the seller XXXX, and XXXX regarding this dispute 2. A thorough explanation of how this evidence has been evaluated 3. The specific criteria and standards being applied to determine the outcome of my dispute 4. A detailed timeline of the investigation process to date and anticipated completion 5. Multiple four-to-six sentence paragraphs explaining the decision criteria and how evidence was evaluated This report should be provided to me BEFORE Wells Fargo finalizes their decision on my dispute claim.\n\nB. Review of Wells Fargos Dispute Handling Procedures I request that the CFPB conduct a review of Wells Fargos dispute handling procedures to ensure compliance with : 1. Electronic Fund Transfer Act requirements for dispute investigation and resolution 2. Regulation E standards for error resolution and investigation 3. Consumer Financial Protection Act provisions regarding fair and transparent financial services 4. Industry best practices for consumer dispute resolution C. Compliance Assessment with Federal Regulations I request that the CFPB assess whether Wells Fargos handling of my dispute complies with applicable federal regulations, particularly regarding : 1. Transparency in the investigation process 2. Communication of investigation status and findings 3. Consideration of all relevant evidence 4. Fair and impartial evaluation of dispute claims 5. Timely resolution of consumer disputes I appreciate the CFPBs attention to this matter and look forward to a fair and transparent resolution of my complaint. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-25T19:45:43.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"89509","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15494710","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-08-25T19:37:56.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Regulation</em> E Investigation Standards Under 12 CFR Part 1005 ( <em>Regulation</em> E ), financial institutions are required to : 1. Conduct a thorough investigation of alleged <em>errors</em> 2. Review all relevant information provided by the consumer 3. Determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred 4. Report the results of the investigation to the consumer 5."]},"sort":[13.015786,"15494710"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18437451","_score":12.90824,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is my third complaint regarding Fifth Third Bank. Their XX/XX/XXXX response to my second complaint introduces new contradictions, continues to ignore my Regulation X requests, and reflects a pattern of providing false or misleading information to the CFPB while my family continues to suffer the consequences. \nFifth Third has completely failed to respond to my Requests for Information and Notices of Error submitted under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36. I sent email requests on XXXX XXXX XXXX, followed by a XXXX hard copy on XX/XX/XXXX, which was delivered and signed for by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Fifth Third was required to acknowledge receipt within XXXX business days and to provide a substantive response within XXXX business days of receipt. I received nothing. The only communications I received were their CFPB response letters containing shifting explanations, which do not constitute Regulation X compliance. I am entitled to written, itemized responses to each issue raised in my XXXX XXXX Fifth Thirds continued failure to provide those responses is an ongoing violation of federal law. \nIn its XX/XX/XXXX response, Fifth Third now claims it does not have signed XXXX documents in its system. This directly contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX letter Fifth Third attached to its first CFPB response confirming me as successor-in-interest. It also contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX phone call in which Fifth Thirds representative confirmed my XXXX status, apologized for delays, updated my contact information, and instructed me to submit a loss-mitigation application using my grandmothers information. \nIf Fifth Third confirmed me as successor-in-interest in XX/XX/XXXX, why was I never sent written confirmation as required by 12 C.F.R. 1024.30 ( d )? I did not learn of this confirmation until the XX/XX/XXXX phone call, more than XXXX years later, and only because I contacted the bank about an unrelated issue. Had Fifth Third sent the required written confirmation in XXXX, I could have prevented XXXX foreclosure attempts, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filings, severe credit damage, the medical crisis documented by my mental health provider on XX/XX/XXXX, and ultimately the loss of my grandmothers home. This entire catastrophe stems from Fifth Thirds failure to send one legally required letter. \nThis is an XXXX loan, which imposed additional obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and FHA XXXX XXXX XXXX. FHA policy requires servicers to identify successors-in-interest, engage them, and evaluate them for loss-mitigation options before foreclosure. Fifth Third violated all of these requirements. You had my contact information the entire time. After my grandmother died, Fifth Third instructed me to file probate, proving direct contact and knowledge of my involvement. I was notated on her account and handled matters on her behalf even before her death. You can verify this in your own account notes. You now claim I was confirmed successor-in-interest in XX/XX/XXXX, yet you never sent written confirmation and never proactively engaged me regarding loss-mitigation options. You confirmed my XXXX status, failed to notify me in writing, accepted my loss-mitigation application, and then sold the house while that application was under review. That is a direct violation of FHA servicing standards, not a technical oversight. \nFifth Thirds timeline continues to change. In its XX/XX/XXXX response, the bank claimed I submitted documents in XX/XX/XXXX and that the property was sold on XX/XX/XXXX. In its XX/XX/XXXX response, Fifth Third now claims it received my hardship letter on XX/XX/XXXX and that the property was sold on XX/XX/XXXX, admitting the earlier date was misinformation. Fifth Third has now admitted it lied about the sale date, yet its revised narrative remains inaccurate. \nThe actual facts are documented in the portal logs and chat transcripts I submitted with my second complaint. I submitted a complete loss-mitigation application through the portal on XX/XX/XXXX. When a representative later claimed it was not received, I was emailed a blank hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX and instructed to complete and submit it so the request could be opened. I followed those instructions and submitted the completed hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX. \nAfter I submitted the completed hardship application on XX/XX/XXXX, I retained access to the XXXX XXXX XXXX portal, but upload functionality and the ability to successfully complete new assistance submissions were blocked despite the application being treated as active and under review. This condition persisted through the XX/XX/XXXX sale and afterward, later appearing as a formal RFA Failed system entry on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThe sheriffs sale proceeded on XX/XX/XXXX while the application was still under review. \nPortal logs show the application was created on XX/XX/XXXX and reflect multiple document uploads. XXXX agent claimed via chat that no application existed on XX/XX/XXXX, directly contradicting the system records. Agents also stated the review period was approximately XXXX days. There were XXXX days between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. During XX/XX/XXXX, different agents gave contradictory statements about whether my application existed, what documents were required, and when it was received. I was repeatedly told to contact XXXX to stop the auction. My former probate attorney attempted to do so and could not reach them. \nDuring the XX/XX/XXXX call, Fifth Thirds representative specifically instructed me to submit the loss-mitigation application using my grandmothers information. I followed those instructions. Fifth Third can not now claim the application was improper when its own agent directed its submission that way. I also disclosed from the beginning that title remained in the XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX, that probate was ongoing, and that the probate judge directed the XXXX XXXX and me to resolve the mortgage issue. I was transparent throughout. \nFifth Third now claims my application was incomplete due to an allegedly expired drivers license, lack of insurance proof, and lack of proof of ownership in my name. My drivers license was not expired. Where is the written notice of missing items? Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ), an incomplete application requires written notice identifying specific deficiencies within XXXX days. I never received such a notice. There is no proof of mailing, no tracking, and no delivery confirmation. If Fifth Third claims it sent notices, prove it. You also failed to use the updated contact information recorded during the XX/XX/XXXX call. \nFifth Third now claims my application was incomplete due to title because the property was held in the estate rather than in my individual name. Cite the legal authority requiring title transfer for successor-in-interest loss-mitigation review. Regulation X defines successor-in-interest status independently of title ownership. I disclosed the probate status upfront. Your agents should have processed the application based on confirmed SII status. \nFifth Thirds XX/XX/XXXX response claims its system does not allow uploads or applications to be blocked. That statement is contradicted by the portals actual behavior and Fifth Thirds own activity logs. I retained access to the Loan Solution Center portal, but upload and submission functionality was blocked beginning after XX/XX/XXXX and continuing through and after the XX/XX/XXXX sale, later reflected as an RFA Failed system entry on XX/XX/XXXX. If Fifth Third disputes this, it should produce technical documentation and backend logs showing when upload and submission controls were XXXX on my account and why. \nI did everything by the book. I followed your agents instructions. I submitted what was requested. I disclosed everything upfront. I called repeatedly. I wrote letters. I sent XXXX mail. I filed proper Regulation X requests. I gave Fifth Third every opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, you stalled while my redemption period runs out on XX/XX/XXXX. While your executives were home with their families for XXXX, I was buried in legal filings trying to save my grandmothers home. You created this situation and then blamed me for not mitigating. That is offensive. The failure to mitigate is yours. \nMy grandmother was a Fifth Third customer since before XXXX, when it was XXXX XXXX Bank. This home was built new by ICCF for low-income families, and we are the only family who has ever lived here. I stayed behind to care for my grandmother when others left. XXXX XXXX documented that without my caregiving, she would have required XXXXXXXX XXXX placement. Had Fifth Third sent the required XXXX confirmation in XXXX, none of this would have happened. \nFifth Third is pursuing corporate mergers while failing to meet basic servicing obligations. You have resources for expansion but not for compliance. As my grandmother used to say, it starts at the head and spreads abroad. Your agents either do not know the rules or do not care. \nExplain how this is fair. Explain how you sleep at night treating long-term customers this way. You had the ability to prevent this by sending XXXX required letter. You chose not to. I am filing complaints with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Michigan Attorney General, and XXXX. I am making this public. I will not stop until Fifth Third takes responsibility. \nI demand written responses to each item in my XX/XX/XXXX XXXX within XXXX business days, production of proof of mailing for any alleged notices, proof of any letters you claim I signed, complete loss-mitigation workflow logs for XXXX XXXX XXXX and technical documentation regarding portal functionality and account lock status. Correct the record and admit the actual timeline. Identify who provided false information to the CFPB and what corrective action is being taken. \nI am not asking CFPB to decide my state court case. I am asking CFPB to require Fifth Third to comply with federal servicing law and to provide accurate, consistent information. \nFifth Thirds response is filled with polished language about first-class customer service and transparency, yet the bank refuses to produce the underlying records. If Fifth Third stands by its narrative, it should produce the evidence. \nI specifically demand production of the XX/XX/XXXX call audio at approximately XXXX XXXX  XXXX, including the call-detail record, interaction ID, agent identification, department, call duration, and all contemporaneous account notes. That call is dispositive. Fifth Third can not claim customer-service excellence while refusing to produce it. \nI also demand production of complete backend servicing and workflow data tied to my loss-mitigation submissions for XXXX XXXX XXXX. If Fifth Third claims documentation was missing, produce the system records proving those requests were actually made at the time. \nIgnoring Regulation X requests for months is not a customer-service issue. It is a compliance failure. \nEnough with the scripted language. This is about records. Fifth Third has had months and has offered nothing but revised timelines and excuses. That ends now. \nEnough with the XXXX. Enough with the shifting timelines and post-hoc explanations. If Fifth Third stands by its actions, it should produce the audio, the logs, and the workflow data and let the facts speak. Accountability begins when the talking stops and the evidence is produced.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T03:23:28.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"49503","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18437451","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-01-03T03:08:59.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is my third <em>complaint</em> regarding Fifth Third Bank. Their XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> response to my second <em>complaint</em> introduces new contradictions, continues to ignore my <em>Regulation</em> X requests, and reflects a pattern of providing false or misleading information to the CFPB while my family continues to suffer the consequences. \nFifth Third has completely failed to respond to my Requests for Information and Notices of <em>Error</em> submitted under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36."]},"sort":[12.90824,"18437451"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14907744","_score":12.808884,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB ComplaiXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX \nContinued FCRA Violations Following Inadequate Response to Complaint # XXXX Company XX/XX/XXXXXXXX by Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Credit Reporting Issue : Security freeze refusal and excessive documentation requirements Sub-issue : Improper use of personal information Previous Complaint : # XXXX ( Closed with inadequate company response ) COMPLAINT NARRATIVE This is a follow-up complaint regarding XX/XX/XXXX' continued violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act following their inadequate response to CFPB Complaint # XXXX. \nBackground - Original Issue On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed CFPB Complaint # XXXX requesting that XX/XX/XXXX process my account security freeze. I provided a copy of my driver 's license and a recent utility bill as identification, which meets federal FCRA requirements for \" reasonable identification. ''XX/XX/XXXX ' Inadequate Response Rather than processing my legally mandated freeze request,XX/XX/XXXX responded by : Demanding excessive documentation - Requiring a Social Security card despite federal law only requiring \" reasonable identification '' Questioning complaint legitimacy - Claiming my CFPB complaint \" does not appear to have been sent directly by you '' without any basis. \nProviding boilerplate language - Sending generic legal text instead of addressing my specific freeze request Escalating the violation - Adding more barriers instead of complying with federal law Current Status - Ongoing Violations XX/XX/XXXX continues to violate federal law by : Refusing to process my security freeze despite adequate identification provided Imposing documentation requirements beyond FCRA standards Blocking my federally guaranteed consumer rights under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 Pattern of Corporate Misconduct This case demonstrates the systematic FCRA violations currently being prosecuted by the CFPB in CFPB XXXX Experian Information Solutions ( Case XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX ). That lawsuit alleges Experian and its subsidiaries engage in \" faulty intake procedures '' and \" sham investigations '' that violate consumer rights. \nSpecific Legal Violations 1. FCRA Section 605A Violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 ) Denying federally guaranteed security freeze rights Imposing excessive identification requirements beyond \" reasonable identification '' 2. Consumer Financial Protection Act Violation ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) Unfair practices causing substantial injuryto consumers can not reasonably be avoided No countervailing benefits to excessive documentation requirements XXXX. Inadequate Complaint Response Failing to address consumer concerns as required by the CFPB complaint process substantively Escalating violations instead of resolving them Connection to Current CFPB Enforcement XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXis wholly owned by Experian, which the CFPB sued on XX/XX/XXXX, for conducting \" sham investigations '' and failing to follow proper FCRA procedures. CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX stated : \" When consumers disputed errors on their credit reports, Experian conducted sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law. '' This Complaint demonstrates the same pattern of misconduct at Experian 's subsidiary. \nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX' violations cause : Identity theft vulnerability - Can not secure account freeze protection Regulatory circumvention - Company avoiding federal compliance requirements Time and resource waste - Forced to pursue multiple complaints for fundamental legal rights Credit score risk - Unprotected account remains vulnerable to unauthorized access Relief Requested Order immediate security freeze processing using the identification already provided XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX' systematic FCRA violations Include this case in ongoing Experian enforcement action ( Case XXXX ) Fine XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXfor continued XXXX XXXX violations Issue industry guidance clarifying reasonable identification standards Audit XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX' XXXX for FCRA XXXX Supporting Documentation XXXX freeze request letter with driver 's license and utility bill copiesXX/XX/XXXX ' inadequate XXXX XXXX CFPB Complaint # XXXX documentation Evidence of Experian 's ownership of XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXPrevious Complaint History CFPB Complaint # XXXX - Filed XX/XX/XXXX, closed with inadequate company response The company failed to resolve ; instead, it escalated violations rather than complying with federal regulations.l law","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T00:18:00.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"98683","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14907744","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-28T00:07:43.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> History CFPB <em>Complaint</em> # <em>XXXX</em> - <em>Filed</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, closed with inadequate company response The company failed to resolve ; instead, it escalated violations rather than complying with federal <em>regulations</em>.l law"]},"sort":[12.808884,"14907744"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18994381","_score":12.491006,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Narrative : Freedom Mortgage Corporation Complaint Filed By : [ Borrower Names ] Loan Number : [ Loan Number ] Collateral Address : [ Property Address ] Current Mailing Address : [ Mailing Address ] Subject : Violation of Regulation X ( RESPA ) & HUD Guidelines Improper Denial of Loss Mitigation & Failure of Reasonable Diligence To Whom It May Concern : We are filing this formal complaint against Freedom Mortgage Corporation for specific violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( Regulation X ) and FHA Servicing Guidelines regarding the mishandling of our forbearance exit and subsequent denial of loss mitigation.\n\n1. The \" Technical Default '' Created by Servicer Instruction ( Violation of 12 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) We entered a 90-day forbearance agreement starting XX/XX/XXXX, due to a temporary hardship ( elder care ). During the week of XX/XX/XXXX, prior to the forbearance expiration, we contacted Freedom Mortgage to arrange a loan modification repayment plan.\n\nFreedom Mortgage representatives instructed us that we must formally exit the forbearance plan before they could process a loan modification application. We followed this instruction, calling the week of XX/XX/XXXX. However, Freedom Mortgage then took over 30 days to process the application, during which time they reported the loan as delinquent for all months on forbearance and during processing time. By instructing us to exit a protected status without processing the modification concurrently, Freedom Mortgage failed to exercise \" reasonable diligence '' as required by 12 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) ( 1 ), effectively manufacturing a technical default and penalizing us for their own administrative delay. It was their directive to call one week prior to the end of the forbearance.\n\n2. Improper Denial Based on \" Seasoning '' ( Violation of HUD Handbook 4000.1 ) We were subsequently denied all retention options ( Loan Modification, Partial Claim, Repayment Plan ) with the stated reason being \" Minimum Payment Seasoning. '' This is a clear misapplication of FHA Streamline Refinance Guidelines ( Section II.A.8.d ) to a Loss Mitigation file.\n\nThe Law : Under HUD Handbook 4000.1, Section III.A.2.k, there is no statutory requirement for 6 months of consecutive payments for a borrower exiting forbearance to qualify for a COVID-19 Recovery Standalone Partial Claim.\n\nThe Error : Freedom Mortgage is applying \" Refinance '' eligibility criteria to a \" Loss Mitigation '' request, illegally blocking us from a standard FHA remedy.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Single Point of Contact ( Violation of 12 CFR 1024.40 ) Although we were assigned a \" Single Point of Contact '' ( SPOC ) named XXXX ( Teller # XXXX ) via a mailed letter to us, we were never able to reach this individual. Instead, we were passed to multiple unknowledgeable representatives ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) who provided conflicting information and merely read from scripts. This failure to provide a knowledgeable, accessible SPOC violates the continuity of contact requirements of 12 CFR 1024.40.\n\n4. Income Calculation Error Freedom Mortgage failed to include all sources of our household income in their review. We have submitted updated evidence showing a monthly net surplus of {$5300.00}, proving we have the capacity to resume payments immediately if the arrearage is cured via a Partial Claim.\n\nRequested Relief : Immediate Re-evaluation : We request Freedom Mortgage be ordered to re-evaluate our file for a Standalone Partial Claim or Payment Deferral under the correct HUD Loss Mitigation guidelines, without the erroneous \" refinance seasoning '' requirement.\n\nCredit Correction : We request the suppression of negative credit reporting for XX/XX/XXXX, as this delinquency was caused by the servicer 's specific instruction to exit forbearance prior to application approval.\n\nWritten Response : We request a written explanation from a qualified regulatory specialist ( not a general customer service agent ) citing the specific HUD statute they believe allows them to deny a Partial Claim based on \" seasoning. '' The Fair Immediate Resolution We demand that Freedom Mortgage immediately execute a Standalone Partial Claim ( or equivalent FHA Retention Option ) to resolve the arrearage caused by the forbearance period, under the following specific terms : 1. Capitalization of Arrears ( The \" Fix '' ) : Action : Take the total unpaid principal, interest, taxes, and insurance ( XXXX ) accrued during the forbearance period ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) plus the \" gap '' month of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nMechanism : Move this total amount into a non-interest-bearing, silent second lien ( Partial Claim ) due only at loan maturity or payoff.\n\nResult : This brings the loan immediately current without requiring a lump-sum payment from us.\n\n2. Immediate Resumption of Standard Payments : Action : Reinstatement of our original ( or slightly modified ) monthly mortgage payment effective XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nJustification : We have verified income of ~ $ XXXX/month and a surplus of ~ $ XXXX/month, proving we have the immediate capacity to resume standard payments.\n\n3. Credit Reporting Correction ( The \" Clean Slate '' ) : Action : Suppress or remove all negative credit reporting ( 30/60/90-day lates ) for the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nJustification : The delinquency in these specific months was manufactured by Freedom Mortgage 's instruction to exit forbearance prior to processing the modification, a violation of the \" reasonable diligence '' standard in 12 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) ( 1 ). We should not be penalized for following servicer instructions.\n\n4. Waiver of All Late Fees : Action : Waive all late charges and property preservation fees assessed from XX/XX/XXXX, to present.\n\nJustification : These fees are not permissible during a protected forbearance and loss mitigation review period.\n\nWhy this is \" Fair '' : This resolution costs Freedom Mortgage nothing out of pocket ( FHA insures the Partial Claim ), returns the loan to \" Performing Status '' instantly ( good for their books ), and protects us from foreclosure while correcting the credit damage caused by their administrative delays. It is a \" textbook '' application of the HUD Waterfall for a borrower who has recovered from a temporary hardship.\n\nWe are submitting a concurrent appeal directly to Freedom Mortgage via next-day mail. We ask the CFPB to investigate these procedural violations immediately. We are also doing the same for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Housing Federal Housing Commissioner.\n\nSincerely, [ Borrower Names ] [ Phone Number ] [ Mailing Address ]","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-25T22:28:04.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"78251","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18994381","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Freedom Mortgage Company","date_received":"2026-01-25T21:46:24.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Formal <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : Freedom Mortgage Corporation <em>Complaint</em> <em>Filed</em> By : [ Borrower Names ] Loan Number : [ Loan Number ] Collateral Address : [ Property Address ] Current Mailing Address : [ Mailing Address ] Subject : Violation of <em>Regulation</em> X ( RESPA ) & HUD Guidelines Improper Denial of Loss Mitigation & Failure of Reasonable Diligence To Whom It May Concern : We are <em>filing</em> this formal <em>complaint</em> against Freedom Mortgage Corporation for specific violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures"]},"sort":[12.491006,"18994381"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10685631","_score":12.453271,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint due to Experian 's failure to conduct a thorough investigation into repeated, inaccurate reporting on my credit file, despite multiple formal dispute submissions. This negligence has led to significant harm to my credit profile and violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nBackground of the Issue : On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted my initial dispute regarding the inaccurate reporting on an account with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX which was charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of a single charge-off entry, Experian has been continuously reporting this account as \" charged off '' every month, creating a false narrative of ongoing delinquency. \n\nIn response, Experian updated my credit report on XX/XX/XXXX, stating that The dispute for the account with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that starts with XXXX has been updated. However, this update did not correct the inaccuracies. On XX/XX/XXXX, Experian responded through the CFPB, claiming that they had reinvestigated and verified that the account information was accurate, despite no actual updates being made to my file. \n\nDue to Experians ongoing failure to correct this inaccurate information, I submitted a second reinvestigation request on XX/XX/XXXX. Experian updated my credit report again on XX/XX/XXXX with the same message, The dispute for the account with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that starts with XXXX has been updated, yet failed to address the incorrect reporting. I followed up with a third request on XX/XX/XXXX, to which Experian responded by again claiming that the balance of {$1600.00} had been updated on XX/XX/XXXX. This is the exact balance recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, revealing that no real update had occurred. \n\nMoreover, Experian has applied an additional charge-off for XX/XX/XXXX, inflating the accounts negative impact on my credit and further distorting its status. \n\nViolations Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Experians conduct raises serious legal concerns under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates accurate, fair, and complete reporting by both data furnishers and credit reporting agencies. The following sections of the FCRA are particularly relevant to this case : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) Furnishers Duty to Report Accurate Information : Experian has failed to ensure accurate reporting on this account by repeatedly updating it as if it were a new monthly charge-off, which misrepresents the accounts actual status. Reporting a charge-off in this manner is neither accurate nor compliant.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation of Disputes : Under the FCRA, Experian is obligated to investigate disputed information thoroughly and accurately. Their responses have consistently failed to correct or properly address the errors I reported, suggesting a lack of due diligence and care in the reinvestigation process.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) Requirement for a Reasonable Reinvestigation by Credit Reporting Agencies : Experians inadequate reinvestigations, marked by repeated failures to correct misinformation, indicate a systematic disregard for their duty to perform a reasonable reinvestigation, as required by law. These lapses violate my rights under the FCRA and warrant immediate action.\n\nImpact and Request for Resolution : Experians ongoing misreporting severely impacts my credit standing, misrepresents my payment history, and manipulates the statute of limitations on this account. These failures amount to a willful disregard for FCRA regulations, causing continued harm to my creditworthiness.\n\nGiven Experians repeated violations and failure to comply with the FCRA, I demand the immediate deletion of this account from my credit report as a necessary corrective measure. I request prompt and thorough investigation by the CFPB to hold Experian accountable for these violations and prevent further harm caused by Experians persistent inaccuracies.\n\nThank you for your attention to this serious matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-04T15:53:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"21215","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10685631","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-11-04T15:40:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In response, Experian updated my credit report on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, stating that The dispute for the account with <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX that starts with <em>XXXX</em> has been updated. However, this update did not correct the inaccuracies. On XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, Experian responded through the CFPB, <em>claiming</em> that they had reinvestigated and verified that the account information was accurate, despite no actual updates being made to my <em>file</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[12.453271,"10685631"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20036390","_score":12.408178,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX : Service Provider Impersonator Scam occurred and was reported to Wells Fargo within minutes, and at that point, I was told there was nothing they could do about it. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Called Wells Fargo a second time and set up XXXX fraud claims : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : I called Wells Fargo to let them know that both XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX have already investigated this exact event, validated the imposter fraud, and issued full refunds. I sent them proof on XX/XX/XXXX. On the phone, the agent told me all of my claims had been denied and I got the same story of it was my fault from him. But I asked for my claim to be escalated due to Regulation E. He told me I would get a phone call from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX hours. \nXX/XX/XXXX : No contact from XXXX by XXXX, so I sent them the below email. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I received a call from XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX and he told me that since he just got the case on his desk on XX/XX/XXXX, he has XXXX days to provide an answer because my claims were denied in their system. \n\nI believe XXXX XXXX states that Wells Fargo has XXXX days starting from XX/XX/XXXX, but that is not what they are telling me. \n\nActions Taken : XXXX Police XXXX : Case # XXXX I have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission # XXXX I have filed a complaint with the CFPB - Case # XXXX for {$5000.00}. \n\nCFPB Complaint : # XXXX for {$500.00} - RESOLVED. \n\nXXXX XXXX ID : # XXXX - RESOLVED. \n\nI have filed a report with the FBIs IC3 Submission ID : XXXX. \n\n\nTo : Wells Fargo Executive Office / Claims Review XXXX XXXX : XXXX This email serves as a formal rebuttal to the denial of my fraud claims ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) and a notice of intent to pursue a Small Claims judgment in XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA, if not resolved by Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I was promised a call within XXXX hours to discuss the escalation of these claims. That window has expired without contact from Wells Fargo. Below is the summary of the Service Provider Imposter Scam and the banks subsequent failures. \n\nXXXX. The Nature of the Fraud : Service Provider Impersonation This was not a merchant dispute ; it was a sophisticated Imposter Scam involving the impersonation of XXXX Support. Under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Wells Fargo is required to reimburse victims of qualifying imposter scams where a criminal impersonates a known service provider to induce transfers. \nTransaction XXXX ( {$500.00} ) : Induced by a spoofed \" XXXX XXXX '' email and a live caller ( XXXX ) posing as XXXX XXXX, claiming a fee was required to \" unlock '' the transition from personal to business. The email I received used deceptive 'Venmo ' branding to induce a transfer under the guise of a mandatory service upgrade. This constitutes Fraudulent Inducement by a Service Provider Imposter, which is a covered event under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nTransaction XXXX ( {$500.00} ) : Induced by a live caller posing as XXXX XXXX, claiming a system error. \nTransaction XXXX ( {$2000.00} ) : Induced by a fraudulent \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' required for \" insurance. '' Transaction XXXX ( {$2000.00} ) : Induced by an \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' narrative. \n\nXXXX. Evidence of Induced Duress & Immediate Discovery I sent the final {$2000.00} under a state of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was kept under high-intensity phone pressure for over an hour. The moment the phone call ended, the duress was broken. Within minutes, I was able to think rationally, identify the scam, and immediately messaged the perpetrator to call them out. This XXXX dialogue is not evidence of authorization ; it is timestamped proof of my immediate discovery and reporting of the fraud once the perpetrators influence was removed. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Wells Fargos XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have already investigated this exact event, validated the imposter fraud, and issued full refunds. Wells Fargo is the only outlier refusing to acknowledge the criminal nature of this attack. \nBehavioral Monitoring Failure : Why did Wells Fargos XXXX Fraud Monitoring fail to freeze my account after XXXX high-velocity transfers ( {$5000.00} total ) were sent to XXXX brand-new recipients in a single morning? \nFailure of Duty of Care : I reported this within minutes. The first agent failed to initiate a XXXX XXXX or network flag while the funds were in transit, a direct failure of the banks duty to mitigate loss. \n\nXXXX. Loyal Wells Customer My family holds XXXX home mortgages, a checking account, and a brokerage account with Wells Fargo. We have been loyal, high-value clients. It is unacceptable that XXXX and XXXX protected me as a victim, while Wells Fargo has failed to communicate or follow XXXX own imposter reimbursement rules. \n\nRegards, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-06T15:07:14.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"982XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20036390","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-03-06T14:59:44.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Actions Taken : <em>XXXX</em> Police <em>XXXX</em> : Case # <em>XXXX</em> I have <em>filed</em> a report with the Federal Trade Commission # <em>XXXX</em> I have <em>filed</em> a <em>complaint</em> with the CFPB - Case # <em>XXXX</em> for {$5000.00}. \n\nCFPB <em>Complaint</em> : # <em>XXXX</em> for {$500.00} - RESOLVED. \n\n<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ID : # <em>XXXX</em> - RESOLVED. \n\nI have <em>filed</em> a report with the FBIs IC3 Submission ID : <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[12.408178,"20036390"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":61,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":61}]}},"product":{"doc_count":61,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":18,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":16},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":14,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":10},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"CD (Certificate of Deposit)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":11,"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":10},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":7},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":61,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":4},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":4},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":10}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":5},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":5,"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":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":3},{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":4,"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":2},{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged too much interest","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive terms that were advertised","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":61,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":61}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":61,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":52},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":8},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":61,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":61}]}},"company":{"doc_count":61,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":9},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":8},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Guild Holdings Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"ID Analytics, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":61,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":6},{"key":"MI","doc_count":6},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"NV","doc_count":4},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"KY","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"WA","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"TN","doc_count":2},{"key":"AK","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"RI","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":61,"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":31},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":61,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":5},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[12.408178,"20036390"],"3":[7.061337,"8368746"]}}}