{"took":230,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":12,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18056556","_score":18.642794,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT NARRATIVE FOR CFPB SUBMISSION Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Early Warning Services , LLC Dispute Case ID : XXXX Disputed Account : XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( Ending in XXXX ) Subject : Violation of FCRA Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation and Contradictory Verification Claims To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am filing this formal complaint against Early Warning Services ( EWS ) for willfully violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which mandates a \" reasonable reinvestigation '' of disputed information. \n\nThe Violation : On XX/XX/year>, Early Warning Services concluded a reinvestigation into a disputed XXXX  XXXX XXXX account ( Case ID : XXXX ). In their final results, they stated : \" It has been determined that the information contained in your file is accurate and complete ''. \n\n\n\n\nHowever, in a separate letter dated the exact same day ( XX/XX/year> ) regarding the same dispute, Early Warning Services explicitly admitted : \" Early Warning does not have access to account documentation that resides within your Financial Institution '' and \" Therefore, we are unable to provide copies of documents that your Financial Institution maintains ''.\n\nLegal Argument : Failure to Review Relevant Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : I previously submitted documentation proving the inaccuracy of this account. By their own admission, XXXX does not access or review the underlying account documentation residing with the financial institution. Therefore, they failed to review \" all relevant information '' submitted by the consumer as required by law. \n\nFalse Certification of Accuracy : It is legally and logically impossible for XXXX to certify that a file is \" accurate and complete '' while simultaneously admitting they have \" no access '' to the documents required to verify that accuracy. This indicates they merely \" parroted '' the data furnishers automated response without conducting the independent investigation required by the FCRA. \n\n\nRequested Resolution : XXXX  has proven they are procedurally incapable of verifying the factual accuracy of this account against the actual bank records. Because the investigation was a sham and contradictory on its face : I request the CFPB order Early Warning Services to assign a new investigator to this matter immediately. \n\nI demand the immediate deletion of the XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( ending in XXXX ) from my consumer report, as the bureau has admitted they can not verify the underlying documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-03T22:12:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"17057","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18056556","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-03T22:08:36.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> FOR CFPB SUBMISSION Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX : <em>Early</em> Warning Services , LLC Dispute Case ID : XXXX Disputed Account : XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( Ending in XXXX ) Subject : Violation of FCRA Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation and Contradictory Verification Claims To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am filing this formal <em>complaint</em> against <em>Early</em> Warning Services ( EWS ) for willfully violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a"],"company":["<em>Early</em> Warning Services, LLC"]},"sort":[18.642794,"18056556"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19683169","_score":13.714132,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT / FORMAL DISPUTE ESCALATION Company : American Express National Bank Consumer : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, AR XXXX Accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( ending XXXX / XXXX ) ; Business Gold ( ending XXXX ) Issue : Regulation Z Billing Error Investigation and Procedural Compliance COMPLAINT NARRATIVE This complaint concerns American Express 's repeated closure of documented billing disputes based solely on a \" XXXX '' timing assertion, without addressing certified written notices, merchant coding irregularities, or previously established knowledge of the disputed activity. \n\nThe issue presented is not whether a charge was processed through the payment network, but whether American Express complied with its investigation obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ).\n\nAmerican Express has issued multiple form letters stating : \" Because this dispute was reported more than 60 days after your statement date, we weren't able to investigate it. '' This statement mischaracterizes the regulatory framework.\n\nI. THE 60-DAY PROVISION DOES NOT ELIMINATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( b ) ( 1 ) defines when certain statutory protections are automatically triggered upon timely written notice. It does not prohibit investigation outside 60 days, nor does it remove creditor authority to evaluate billing errors. \n\n\nThe repeated use of a categorical \" unable to investigate '' position suggests a procedural policy rather than an individualized review of the dispute. \nThe complaint requests CFPB review of whether American Express is : Treating the XXXX provision as a jurisdictional bar, Or using it to decline review despite documented written notice and knowledge.\n\nII. EARLY KNOWLEDGE AND REPEATED WRITTEN NOTICE American Express received written notice of these disputed transactions in early XX/XX/year>. Additional certified correspondence followed. \n\nOnce a creditor receives notice of a potential billing error, Regulation Z requires a reasonable investigation and written explanation of findings ( 1026.13 ( f ) ).\n\nDespite this knowledge trigger, subsequent dispute closures in XX/XX/year> relied solely on the XXXX language without addressing : The certified mail receipts, The evidence submitted, Or the timeline of prior notice. \n\nThe concern is whether internal records reflecting earlier notice were considered before closing the disputes. \n\nIII. MCC MISCODING AND STATEMENT ACCURACY The merchants involved ( XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) operate as sweepstakes-gaming platforms. The transactions were processed under merchant category codes ( MCCs ) that did not reflect the restricted MCC 7995 typically associated with gambling activity.\n\nImproper MCC coding and obscured trade names may constitute billing errors under : 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( incorrect amount or description ) 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( statement inaccuracies ) These issues are independent of whether an authorization code was generated. The periodic statement must accurately reflect the nature of the transaction. \n\nThe complaint requests review of whether American Express evaluated the coding discrepancy as part of its investigation.\n\nIV. FAILURE TO ADDRESS CERTIFIED MAIL NOTICE Formal written notices were transmitted via certified mail consistent with FCBA requirements. American Express 's dispute-closure letters do not reference : The certified mail tracking, The dates of delivery, Or the contents of the written submissions. \n\nSection 1026.13 ( f ) requires a written explanation of findings after investigation. A generic reference to \" 60 days '' does not address the substance of a written billing error notice. The concern is whether the investigation obligation was bypassed rather than fulfilled.\n\nV. DIGITAL WALLET PROVISIONING IS NOT DISPOSITIVE If reliance is placed on Apple Pay provisioning or the presence of an authorization code, that information alone does not establish that : The statement was accurate, The transaction description was proper, Or that no billing error exists. \n\nProvisioning demonstrates device enrollment - not necessarily accurate merchant classification or legal authority of the underlying charge. \n\nVI. INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE 60-DAY POSITION American Express has , in prior instances, investigated disputes submitted beyond XXXX days. If the XXXX window is discretionary in practice, it should not function as a categorical bar in this instance. This raises a compliance consistency concern appropriate for supervisory review.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-21T20:08:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"721XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19683169","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-02-21T20:01:50.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The repeated use of a categorical \" <em>unable</em> to investigate '' position suggests a procedural policy rather than an individualized review of the dispute. \nThe <em>complaint</em> requests CFPB review of whether American Express is : Treating the XXXX provision as a jurisdictional bar, Or using it to decline review despite documented written notice and knowledge.\n\nII. <em>EARLY</em> KNOWLEDGE AND REPEATED WRITTEN NOTICE American Express received written notice of these disputed transactions in <em>early</em> XX/XX/<em>year</em>>."]},"sort":[13.714132,"19683169"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18057635","_score":13.179472,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative Subject : Unfair Account Closure, Access Freeze Preventing Payment, and Incorrect Credit Reporting To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am writing to file a formal complaint against Wells Fargo regarding the mishandling of my checking and credit card accounts. This involves an unfair account closure, the freezing of my online access which prevented me from making credit card payments, and the subsequent incorrect reporting of delinquency. \n\nTimeline of Events and Facts : Address Update Issue : Earlier this year, I updated my address on file to a residential address in XXXX. Wells Fargo subsequently notified me that a XXXX residential address was required. \n\nXXXX XXXX : I attempted to comply immediately via the Wells Fargo mobile app. I successfully updated my mailing address ; however, the apps system limitations prevented me from updating my home/residential address. \n\nAccount Closure : Due to this address discrepancy, Wells Fargo involuntarily closed my checking account. At the time of closure, this account held a balance of approximately {$600.00}. To date, I have not received a check for these funds at my new mailing address. \n\nAccess Freeze and Inability to Pay : Upon closing my checking account, Wells Fargo simultaneously froze my online banking and mobile app access. This locked me out of my credit card account, which had a balance of approximately {$200.00}. \n\nUnjust Delinquency : Because I was locked out of the system, I was physically unable to make payments on the credit card. Now, Wells Fargo is claiming I am 4 months delinquent. \n\nThe Core Issue : It is unjust to penalize me for non-payment when Wells Fargo : Holds my funds ( approx. {$600.00} ) which far exceed my debt ( approx. {$200.00} ). \n\nRevoked the digital access required to make payments. \n\nFailed to send my remaining balance to the correct address. \n\nRequested Resolution : To resolve this matter, I request Wells Fargo take the following actions immediately : Offset the Balance : Use the funds from my closed checking account to pay off the outstanding credit card balance in full. \n\nRefund Remaining Funds : Issue a check for the remaining balance ( Checking Account Balance minus Credit Card Debt ) and mail it to my current reliable XXXX address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Correct Credit Reporting : Immediately retract the XXXX delinquency report to all credit bureaus ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) and remove any late fees or interest accrued, as the inability to pay was caused by Wells Fargo 's restriction of my account access. \n\nI appreciate the CFPB 's assistance in resolving this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-15T22:53:32.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"062XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18057635","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-12-15T22:42:49.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Subject : Unfair Account Closure, Access Freeze Preventing Payment, and Incorrect Credit Reporting To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am writing to file a formal <em>complaint</em> against Wells Fargo regarding the mishandling of my checking and credit card accounts. This involves an unfair account closure, the freezing of my online access which prevented me from making credit card payments, and the subsequent incorrect reporting of delinquency."]},"sort":[13.179472,"18057635"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10380645","_score":10.570169,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"NOTES : -Mortage Loan is currently in foreclosure -Two complaints in this filing ; mortgage modification process failure and failure to pay homeowners insurance premiums -I will try to keep this narrative at a high level with minimal details due to space limitations ; I have multiple pages written with all the details for your review when appropriate. \n\nBeginning in early XXXX and spanning most of that year, my family began a series of XXXX episodes ( elderly mother, young daughter, and myself ). I was unable to make mortgage payments and applied for an HAF grant. It was taking longer than anticipated to work through that process so I applied for assistance through my mortgage company ( SLS ), who ultimately approved me for trial payments ( XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) and a subsequent loan modification. My application for the HAF XXXX was approved and sent to underwriting at this time so I did not move forward with the lenders loan modification program. \n\nIn early XXXX, HAF underwriting denied disbursement of the grant based on my original loan amount falling outside their threshold. I reached out to my mortgage company to discuss options and they advised that I could make the XXXX and XXXX payments by the end of XXXX and then the XXXX payment in XXXX and they would move forward with the modification. \n\nI prepared XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the funds to make the payments in XXXX. Just a couple of days before this transaction was to take place, my landlord broke into my business facility and stole EVERYTHING, valued at nearly {$1.00} XXXX. Much of the equipment and property that was stolen was my personal property that would be covered by my XXXX homeowners insurance policy ( discussed further, later in this document ). I then could not make the trial payments and reached out to SLS again, who advised that I submit a new hardship letter and application for loan modification. \n\nI immediately submitted these documents and was approved in XXXX for the modification program again, with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX trial payments and a requirement that I officially accept the terms of the offer by XX/XX/XXXX, which I did. SLS representative \" XXXX '' took my XX/XX/XXXX phone call to accept the terms of the agreement, noted my file accordingly, and advised that I needed to make each trial payment in the month that it was due. I asked multiple times if this was acceptable and was reassured repeatedly by XXXX that everything was and would be fine, just make the XXXX payment by the end of the month. \n\nDuring this time, I attempted to file a claim with XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX theft. This was a major claim, significantly exceeding {$100000.00}. XXXX advised me that they had cancelled my insurance about XXXX months earlier, in XXXX, for non-payment. This was a shock to me because my mortgage company ( SLS ) was supposed to be paying insurance and taxes out of an escrow account. Apparently XXXX had sent a bill to SLS followed by notices of intent to cancel if payment was not received but XXXX ultimately failed to make the payment and XXXX cancelled my insurance. However, SLS still showed my homeowners insurance policy as 'active ' on my account on their website, displaying the policy number, coverage limits, etc. There was no indication that my policy had been cancelled. SLS subsequently acquired 'lender-initiated ' coverage that does not provide for theft protection and called it a done deal. Meanwhile, I am out XXXX figures on the theft claim and XXXX 's quote for a new, identical policy to my original will cost XXXX times as much. This insurance issue is XXXX of the complaints herein. \n\nBack to the mortgage modification issue- After officially accepting the terms of the modification agreement and being advised to make each trial payment in the month that the payment is due, I called to make the first payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I spoke with my point of contact, XXXX, who told me she couldn't accept of process the payment because my account had been taken out of the modification program. She investigated but neither she nor her supervisor understood why it was taken out of the program. She said IT limitations prevented her from opening it back up but that I should just reapply to set it back up and they'd approve it. \n\nI reapplied but we were now in the middle of the transition from SLS to Newrez/Shellpoint. Customer service could not help as the company was in disarray. The service rep couldn't find documents or employees and proactively filed internal complaints. She told me to give them a couple of weeks to get things straightened out. They did not reach back out to me, so I began calling them. They didn't return messages and scheduled a call with a rep at their earliest convenience - the following week. This delayed the process by XXXX weeks and began a cycle of processing applications and then cancelling them before completing them. This cycle of opening and closing the modification process has happened probably more than 5 times since XXXX. \n\nDuring this XXXX months, Shellpoint has requested documents be sent to email addresses that don't exist ( I have the systems-generated rejected and returned emails ), has advised that I return calls during hours when they are not open, has blocked emails with requested attachments and not notified me that the email was blocked, has told me they simply acquired some loans and that SLS still exists, requested that I reach out to SLS reps that admitted they errored in terminating the XXXX trial payment plan to have them call Shellpoint reps, fails to call during scheduled 'meeting ' times, and has been pointing the finger at SLS all along, claiming that 'the past is the past, stop thinking about it ' and has told me if I am filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau / CFPB, then they can not help me with the mortgage modification process. Seems a bit retaliatory and illegal. \n\nThis discussion of the mortgage modification missteps is the other complain herein. \n\nThere is an awful lot of commotion and chaos to this situation. I hope I was able to provide a concise enough description for you to understand much to most of the issue. Again, please don't hesitate to reach out to me for more information. I have some contemporaneous notes too.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-08T20:33:37.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"99208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10380645","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2024-10-08T20:06:44.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Beginning in <em>early</em> XXXX and spanning most of that <em>year</em>, my family began a series of XXXX episodes ( elderly mother, young daughter, and myself ). I was <em>unable</em> to make mortgage payments and applied for an HAF grant. It was taking longer than anticipated to work through that process so I applied for assistance through my mortgage company ( SLS ), who ultimately approved me for trial payments ( XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) and a subsequent loan modification."]},"sort":[10.570169,"10380645"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6590157","_score":8.209389,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am a licensed attorney and former Flagstar Bank customer. I had a home mortgage with Flagstar Bank that was obtained in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. This complaint centers around problems with the Bank 's autopay system -- which apparently many other customers besides myself have had -- resulting in late fees being charged and late payments being reported on my credit, even though : ( i ) autopay had been working properly on my account for over a year; and ( ii ) I had plenty of money in my personal bank account to make the monthly payments. \n\nI. WHAT HAPPENED : Flagstar acquired my mortgage from the original mortgage company within a few weeks after my house sale closed. Shortly after receiving the initial paperwork from Flagstar in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, I setup an account online via the Flagstar.com website and setup an automatic payment each month, just like I do for all my other loans, credit cards and utility bills. For over a year, everything was fine and my payments went through automatically with no problems. However, in XXXX XXXX XXXX, I got a new job and also switched my primary bank to a local credit union and wanted to use that to make my Flagstar payments. What should have been a simple, bank account change turned into a nightmare lasting for months, resulting in late fees being charged and ( most importantly ) a 60-day late payment notice being reported to the 3 major credit bureaus that is now severely impacting my credit rating. For reference, I have included statements I received from Flagstar during the months of XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX as Exhibit A with this Complaint. \n\nDuring the timeframe in question I had between {$15000.00} and {$20000.00} in my credit union account ( See, e.g., excerpts from credit union monthly statements included as Exhibit B ). I had ample funds to make the payments in question, but was prevented from doing so by Flagstar 's own systems and practices. In particular, the XX/XX/XXXX payment was missed because I thought that my autopay settings had been updated properly. After I began receiving text messages in early XX/XX/XXXX telling me my payment was overdue, I called into the Customer Service line on XX/XX/XXXX and caught that missing payment up by making a double payment covering both XXXX and XXXX. \n\nI consider this \" late payment '' to be 100 % Flagstar 's fault, due inter alia to numerous problems setting up automatic payments via the Bank 's online autopay system, coupled with confusing and constantly changing instructions posted to the website and a host of other factors. I tried numerous times ( unsuccessfully ) to change the bank account details, but always encountered technical or logistical obstacles caused by Flagstars own systems and polices. I attempted to read the instructions on the Flagstar website on multiple occasions, but still despite having worked in the finance / payments industries was utterly befuddled about what I was supposed to do. \n\nCompounding the problem, Flagstar also miscalculated the time period that I was \" late '' on one of the credit reports ( XXXX ), saying I was \" 60 days '' late when \" 30 days '' would have been more accurate. Specifically, the XXXX XXXX was due on XXXX, and late fees are not assessed until after the XXXX of the month. By making a double payment for XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX, this should have been listed as 30-days or ( at most ) 42 days past due. However, the XXXX report says \" 60-days late '' which means it was over *2 months* behind, and this is seen as an even worse delinquency by creditors.\n\nII. OTHER PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE HAD THE SAME CONCERNS : In reviewing online CFPB complaints from other persons during that same timeframe ( Spring/Summer XXXX ) I can see that I am not the only one that had these types of problems with your autopay system. In fact, I reviewed many complaints from this past year that contain facts virtually identical to mine, included several submitted to the CFPB. I have included four ( 4 ) examples here with this submission, collectively labeled as Exhibit C. Some of these complainants have theorized that Flagstar deliberately chose to make the autopay process more difficult, in hopes of generating additional late fees as a away of offsetting lower profit margins due to the historically low interest rates in place since the COVID-19 pandemic. While my loan rate was indeed very low ( 2.75 % ), without sufficient evidence I can not say whether this is or is not true, but I still believe that, at minimum, this situation hits at least one - if not all 3 - UDAAP factors : >> Unfair prong : I incurred substantial injury by being wrongfully charged multiple late fees ( {$66.00} each ) and have also experienced a negative impact ( decrease of XXXX points ) on my credit reports, one of which even describing me as being more \" late '' than I actually was. I was unable to reasonably avoid the injuries because Flagstar 's act ( s ) or practice ( s ) interfered with my ability to effectively make decisions or to take corrective action. In addition, such act ( s ) or practice ( s ) would not be seen as having an offsetting benefit to consumers.\n\n>> Deceptive prong : As mentioned, I received confusing and highly misleading statements ( i.e. instructions ) on the Flagstar website and via telephone support interactions, leading me to believe that autopay on my account was working when in fact it was not. My interpretation would also be considered reasonable under the circumstances, as multiple people in similar situations were complaining about the exact same problems with Flagstar 's autopay system at precisely the same time ( Spring/Summer XXXX ). The misleading statements were \" material, '' in that I would not have allowed the XXXX payment to lapse if I had known that autopay was not configured properly. \n\n>> Abusive prong : The act ( s ) or practice ( s ) in question were also abusive, in that they materially interfered with my ability to protect my interests in using a consumer financial product or service ( i.e. the mortgage loan autopay service ). \n\nSee, e.g., https : XXXX XXXX. PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITH FLAGSTAR : Aside from many calls into the Bank 's customer support phone line, I sent in a CREDIT REPORT REVIEWING REQUEST using the form that Flagstar provides for this purpose. The form was sent via fax on XX/XX/XXXX to the fax line listed at the bottom ( XXXX ). I have included both a copy of the submission form and the delivery confirmation showing a successful transmission as Exhibit D. In the form narrative, I explained the situation to the Bank much in the same way that I have done here. I also advised the bank that if the situation was not promptly resolved I would be pursuing additional legal remedies, including but not limited to filing a CFPB complaint ( like this one ) as well as complaints to other agencies, such as the Office of Comptroller of the Currency , Federal Reserve Board and one or more state banking agencies ( e.g. Michigan, New York ), etc. ), or filing a lawsuit against the Bank in state or federal court. I told the Bank that I would not take any action for 30 days from the date of the submission, but requested that the Bank promptly confirm receipt of my fax as soon as they received it, and to get back to me within a month on the larger issues raised. No response has been received, not even just a simple confirmation of receipt and \" we're looking into it '' notice. I can only assume that this is because I am no longer their customer -- my loan was sold a few months ago to another bank -- and I no longer matter to them.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-20T04:00:51.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"89108","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6590157","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP INC","date_received":"2023-02-20T02:02:37.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In the form <em>narrative</em>, I explained the situation to the Bank much in the same way that I have done here. I also advised the bank that if the situation was not promptly resolved I would be pursuing additional legal remedies, including but not limited to filing a CFPB <em>complaint</em> ( like this one ) as well as <em>complaints</em> to other agencies, such as the Office of Comptroller of the Currency , Federal Reserve Board and one or more state banking agencies ( e.g."]},"sort":[8.209389,"6590157"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18054883","_score":7.5276794,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT PACKAGE Rocket Mortgage Loan Misconduct / Regulatory Violation Complaint Prepared for : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # : XXXX Property : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT FORMAL STATEMENT ROCKET MORTGAGE CFPB COMPLAINT PACKAGE Mortgage Lender : Rocket Mortgage , LLC ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Loan Type : FHA 30-Year Fixed Borrowers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, FL XXXX Original Closing Date : XX/XX/XXXX Extended Contract Deadline : XX/XX/XXXX Complaint Filed With : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Nature of Complaint : Unfair, deceptive, inconsistent, and non-FHA-compliant underwriting practices resulting in severe contract risk and harm to consumer. \n\nI. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT Rocket Mortgage has engaged in unfair, deceptive, and inconsistent lending practices by : 1. Introducing unsupported and contradictory conditions after issuing a valid Conditional Approval. \n2. Misclassifying fully verified borrower assets as intermingled despite approving the identical funds earlier for EMD. \n3. Demanding a gift fund of approx. {$3300.00} despite the borrowers having fully documented and sufficient assets that originate from the same source as the Escrow, which has been deemed usable on every LE. \n4. Failing to cite any FHA 4000.1 guideline to justify the new condition, even after repeated written requests. \n5. Threatening denial on the day of closing without issuing an official adverse action notice. \n6. Using phone calls instead of written communication to avoid documentation, in violation of ECOA written communication requirements. \n7. Missing two contractual closing dates ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) due entirely to lender-created issues and refusing to resolve them despite clear documentation. \nThe borrowers have fully satisfied every financial condition originally disclosed. \nRocket Mortgage has not cited any FHA guideline supporting their new condition and is contradicting its own written approvals. \nThe conduct directly threatens : A {$15000.00} Earnest Money Deposit ( EMD ) A valid Florida purchase contract The borrowers ability to close Compliance with FHA 4000.1, ECOA, and CFPB mortgage origination rules We request an immediate executive-level review, underwriting correction, and resolution. \n\nII. DETAILED NARRATIVE OF MISCONDUCT 1. Conditional Approval Issued No Asset Restrictions Disclosed ( Exhibit A Conditional Approval Letter ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Rocket Mortgage issued a Conditional Approval with no mention of : Intermingled funds Asset ineligibility Tainted funds Gift requirement Any restriction on checking or savings accounts The only item requiring sourcing was a large deposit which was fully documented and approved. \n\n2. EMD Was Approved Using the Same Funds Later Rejected ( Exhibit B EMD Approval Email ) Rocket confirmed in writing that the {$15000.00} Earnest Money Deposit was fully sourced and acceptable under FHA guidelines. \nThis EMD originated from the same account Rocket later claimed was intermingled and unusable. \nThis contradiction forms the core of the complaint. \n\n3. Rocket Introduced New, Unsupported Conditions After Borrower Escalation After the borrowers identified calculation discrepancies from negative XXXX and asked for clarification, Rocket suddenly introduced : A new claim that checking/savings accounts were intermingled A new requirement for a {$3300.00} gift A threat of denial if the gift was not provided No FHA 4000.1 guideline supports these conditions. \n\n4. The Denial Threat Email ( MOST DAMAGING ) ( Exhibit E Pending Denial / Gift Demand Email ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Rocket sent the following : Your loan is not scheduled to close and is pending a denial we are unable to use your checking and savings let us know if you are able to obtain a gift This is a regulatory violation because : No adverse action notice was issued No FHA guideline was cited after multiple written requests Borrower assets were already verified ( see XXXX + bank statements ) Gift requirement contradicts FHA rules These new demands began on Monday XX/XX/XXXX with closing scheduled for Friday XX/XX/XXXX After missing the first closing, the same unsupported condition led to missing XX/XX/XXXX, the second closing extension. \nThis denial threat was issued ON the closing date at end of business These new conditions came after Rocket sent closing instructions, prompting us to activate XXXX services at the property, which remain active as of XX/XX/XXXX This email alone warrants a CFPB investigation. \n\n5. Failure to Provide Written FHA Citation Despite Repeated Requests ( Exhibit F Executive Escalation Emails ) Borrowers repeatedly asked : Please cite the FHA 4000.1 guideline that prohibits us from using our verified funds. \nRocket refused to provide any guideline and simply repeated the request for a gift. \nThis is a violation of : ECOA FHA underwriting requirements Written communication standards 6. Senior VP Misrepresentation ( Exhibit G XXXX XXXX XXXX Email ) A Senior Vice President wrote : If you can not satisfy the conditions Rocket requires, we will not be able to help you secure financing. \nThis implies borrower fault when : All borrower conditions were met Only lender-manufactured issues remain No FHA guideline supports the new demands This constitutes misleading and harmful communication. \n\n7. Lender Missed the Closing Date Twice and Caused Contract Damage ( Exhibit I Contract Excerpt ) Due solely to Rockets late and unsupported condition, the borrowers : Missed both the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX closings Were forced to sign contract extensions twice Are at risk of losing a {$15000.00} deposit Are at risk of losing housing stability Are currently paying two separate electric services ( XXXX ) per Rockets instruction to activate services received on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThe delay is 100 % lender-created without justification. \n\n8. Phone Calls Instead of Written Decisions ( Exhibit H Voicemail Screenshots ) Rocket left repeated voicemails stating we have an update but refused to put anything in writing, even after borrowers demanded written-only communication. \nWhen written responses were finally provided, they repeated the same unsupported gift demand, without addressing FHA guideline requests. \nThis is a pattern of concealment designed to avoid written accountability. \n\n9. Steering Violation Attempt to Redirect or Reassign the Loan ( Exhibit M XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Rocket Mortgage engaged in conduct suggestive of mortgage steering, prohibited under CFPB UDAAP standards, RESPA anti-steering rules, and FHA origination conduct requirements. \nA Rocket team leader, XXXX XXXX, stated in writing that Rocket could : package your loan outside of Rocket. \nThis raises serious concerns : Rocket can not package or redirect a federally regulated FHA loan without issuing a formal withdrawal or denial No adverse action notice was issued This statement came after Rocket introduced unsupported conditions and requested a gift Steering is defined as influencing or directing a borrower toward a different lender or channel to avoid completing the originally approved loan In context, this statement appears to be a work-around to avoid correcting Rockets own underwriting errors This is a prohibited act, and CFPB review is warranted. \n\nIII. VIOLATIONS FOR CFPB REVIEW CFPB must investigate for potential violations of : 1. FHA 4000.1 Guidelines Improper exclusion of acceptable assets. \n2. ECOA ( 12 CFR 1002 ) Failure to provide written adverse action. \nUsing coercive communication. \nIntroducing new conditions after approval. \n3. CFPB Mortgage Origination Rules Unfair & deceptive acts ( UDAAP ). \nMisrepresentation of loan requirements. \nUnsupported underwriting changes. \n4. Contractual Harm & Consumer Damage Risk to EMD Risk to purchase contract Loss of time Increased loan costs Forced extensions","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-02T02:14:36.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"33025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18054883","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-02T02:04:34.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denials"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> PACKAGE Rocket Mortgage Loan Misconduct / Regulatory Violation <em>Complaint</em> Prepared for : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # : XXXX Property : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> FORMAL STATEMENT ROCKET MORTGAGE CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> PACKAGE Mortgage Lender : Rocket Mortgage , LLC ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Loan Type : FHA 30-<em>Year</em> Fixed Borrowers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, FL XXXX Original Closing Date"]},"sort":[7.5276794,"18054883"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4982875","_score":6.5371103,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/2021 To : 5/3rd Bank Office of the President XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Permissions granted I give ( CFPB ) full autonomy to forward a redacted copy ( minus all proper names ) of this redacted letter and redacted case on file to any all claimants that would be assessing damages, or prosecuting criminals against or at 5/3rd bank respectively. \n\nOn this note, if at any time within the next statutory 7-year period, a claimant or regulating body could find this testimony, relevant or useful to establish a pattern of intentionally unaddressed security issues, of any kind, at 5/3rd Bank, then I will be happy to testify on their behalf and without compensation. \n\nMy objective with this complaint It is objective to bring to the proper authorities within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a complete narrative of my experience with 5/3rd bank. I will try to capture the entire experience here in this comprehensive narrative so that any additional violations that I may fail to address can be revealed to investigators who could take corrective action. It is my feeling that there is a host of backend server and security related non-compliancy issues stemming from 5/3rd banks corporate oversight and management. \n\nWhere there is smoke.. \nI can only relay the events as they occurred and happened to me so as to help those people within the federal government who might recognize a dangerous pattern of non-compliance that could jeopardize account security and access of funds of all of 5/3rds trusting customers and not just myself. \nThis final narrative of events regarding compromised internal security measures that ultimately allowed actions to be conducted on my ATM debit card and my associated checking account that are inconsistent with financial account security protocols set f orth by federal regulations. There is evidence of cross-departmental involvement that stems from the sheer absence of automatic alerts and notifications that should have arrived to me in some way, from those various departments upon my cards deactivation, but did not.\n\nSection 47-4-402 of the Uniform Commercial Per section 47-4-402 of the Tennessee adoption of the federal Uniform Commercial Code, language has originally been intended for valid written physical paper checks that have been mistakenly or willfully dishonored by financial institutions that should have paid funds on those cashed checks but instead denied paying funds that were readily available. \n\nRelevant parts of this section that could easily bed subject to reinterpretation go as follows : 47-4-402 ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a payor bank wrongfully dishonors an item if it dishonors an item that is properly payable, but a bank may dishonor an item that would create an overdraft unless it has agreed to pay the overdraft. \n\n( b ) A payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item. Liability is limited to actual damages proved and may include damages for an arrest or prosecution of the customer or other consequential damages. Whether any consequential damages are proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor is a question of fact to be determined in each case. \n\nRelevant case law XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX My experience with 5/3rd bank ( chronologically ) : Supporting arguments for grounds for federally required independent Information Technology Compliance Audit at 5/3rd bank . \n\ni. Experienced chronic password username retrieval issues with the mobile application Apparently 5/3 had been having a chronic, ongoing, malfunctioning, backend server problem with its User Id retrieval and password reset process. I experienced this issue from the start of my account. \n\nWhen trying to retrieve my user Id, this malfunctioning backend system software would inform me that it had successfully found my user ID, after filling out a lengthy form, and that I just needed to log in with that user Id, that I dont have yet, to retrieve it. This ridiculous backend system error never was corrected. \n\nAfter 3 attempts to retrieve the User Id Wednesday night on my phone, it then either silently frozen the checking account, or locked the card and froze the account from any and all subsequent usability. Nevertheless, no notice was ever sent to me when it did this. In fact, I would find out the hard way, at midnight on the following Wednesday night ( XX/XX/2021 ) when I was stranded at a XXXX XXXX  rental lot while trying to load my locked 5/3rd bank ATM card into the XXXX and XXXX apps to get a ride home, but could not. \n\n\n\nii. Experienced serious backend meta data Zip Code issues 5/3rd bank also maybe has backend meta data inconsistencies associated with its account holders profile data and associated ATM cards. As I kept trying to get an XXXX and XXXX ride home from the XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX dealership, Wednesday night at XXXX, about 5 weeks ago, both XXXX and XXXX XXXX were unable to load my 5/3rd card due to inability to accept my zip code of XXXX that has been on file with my account since opening around XXXX. \n\n\n\niii. Experience lack of customer support in a situation that 5/3rd bank deliberately caused There was no reliable night or weekend phone support at all to call and resolve this. Could not reach any support the night that my card became locked. \n\n\n\n\nThe following 1, 2 and 3 events by themselves do not constitute malfeasance or even cause for inquiry, they simply run off customers. Coupled with next mentioned events though they are beginnings of an in-series blockchain of evidence that validates a burden of proof of corporate-wide, non-compliance with federal safety regulations pertaining financial security measures that all financial institutions must have in place, and continuously comply with.. \n\n[ Event 1 ] : Was never contacted before or after the initial card lock My card is locked sometime late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning with no notice given ( XX/XX/2021 ). 5/3rd also fails to communicate to the affected ( me in this case ) of this automated locking action and leaves me stranded and unable to access direly needed funds to get home. In my case, I was at a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX dealership at midnight with no way to pay for a XXXX or XXXX driver. I could not load either a frozen card or a card whose zip code has been miscoded on 5/3rd bank 's poorly maintained backend user account systems. \n\nSo by no fault of my own, at this point, I have a no-notice lock placed on my card due to either : A ) The atm card being rendered unusable because of internal backend server issues that 5/3rd bank has created with my zip code, or..\n\nB ) rendered unusable because 5/3rd bank has locked me out due to all the attempts to access my account and retrieve my User Id with 5/3rd bank 's broken user-id and pw retrieval system or..\n\nC ) a combination of Both A ) and B ) at the same time because of 5/3rds general big- bloated-bank culture of visibly observable lax-ness everywhere throughout the entire customer experience.\n\n[ Event 2 ] : Branch manager disconnects our phone call deliberately leaving my locked debit card in locke\nd status after previously unlocking my online account, retrieving the username, and discussing the issue of not being contacted prior to, during, or after the lock ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The following day ( Friday ), I called into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tennessee branch to have a discussion with branch manager XXXX XXXX about being locked out of my account online and about the ATM card that would not work at the XXXX dealership XXXX which I could only concur at that time were one and the same. We finally unlock the account and retrieved my username that the broken username retrieval process in the 5/3rd application could not do. Then after finally logging back in to see my funds, we then began to discuss the inconvenience that the locked ATM card had caused me. Branch manager XXXX, tells me that 3 illegal attempts that had caused the lock. He then tells me he doesn't know why I was not contacted when my card was locked and doesn't have a means for me to talk to any individuals anywhere at the bank to ascertain what specifically prompted the hold on the card, and most importantly why I was never notified when the hold was placed. \n\nRecapping branch manager XXXX XXXX then hangs up the phone abruptly. His disconnection happens after we have : A ) just unlocked my online account and finally retrieved the user Id that the password retrieval process was unable to do. \nAnd. \n\nB ) Then had a 10-minute discussion about the locked ATM card, wherein I have pleaded with him tell me why I can not be at least transferred to someone to give me more insight as to what specifically prompted the lock on my card. \n\nAt this point, Im under the impression, that because we have finally that he has at least gone ahead and unlocked the ATM card as well, but he has deliberately not. \n\nI HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MY CARD IS STILL IN A LOCKED STATUS. \n\nI DO HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THE CARD IS UNLOCKED BECAUSE a. WE RETRIEVED A USERNAME, b. UNLOCKED MY ONLINE ACCOUNT, c. JUST TALKED ABOUT DISCUSSING GETTING TO SOMEONE INTERNALLY at 5/3rd TO FIND OUT WHY I WAS NOT NOTIFIED ABOUT IT FOR 10 MINUTES.\n\nAnd it is at this point, after discussing this on the phone for 10 minutes, that he chooses to just disconnect the call. Branch manager XXXX XXXX never calls me back to inform me that I still need to unlock my card, nor does he fulfill his duties as Manager to unlock the card by : A ) either filling out ticket to initialize the process that would reach out to notify relevant parties to do so, if he can not unlock the card himself, Or..\n\nB ) just unlock the card himself from his workstation while the screen on his computer is still indicating my cards locked status. \n\nHe rather disconnects the call, goes about his marry way as a counterproductive, problem causer, who is supposed to be resolving issues like these, but deliberately does not. \n\n[ Event 3 ] : My card then is mysteriously deactivated on the Friday night of ( XX/XX/2021 ) after having discussed its locked status with XXXX branch manager XXXX XXXX earlier that day. \n\nThat night, I go out to celebrate my new job. \n\nI had just recovered from a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAnd just returned a rented moving truck and moved into an apartment in XXXX with almost no energy while still recovering. \n\nHad then become stranded at a XXXX dealership when I returned the truck, and was unable to unlock the defective 5/3rd ATM card because by bank had no night time customer service to unlock the card. \n\nB ) Had even called into the branch the next day though and seemingly resolved the issue, and thought that I did.\n\nWas even disconnected during the phone call by that branch manager, but at least I was able to get back into my account and was now under the assumption that all the issues were resolved after discussing them with that branch manager for 10 minutes.\n\nThen went to a restaurant with some family. Carrying now my seemingly unlocked ATM 5/3rd card, as an only means of payment for the dining experience. Ran up a sizable tab. Then as we are getting finished with dinner, the waiter comes back to tell me that he tried to run my card, but that it has been unfortunately \" declined 3 times in a row ''. I have turn to my invited guests to pay for the entire dinner. \n\nNext morning, I am at the XXXX XXXX XXXX branch, and I'm there 30 minutes early! I'm the first one in the building when door opens! My focus is to find out why my card is still in locked status, just after I have had a lengthy discussion with the branch manager, Mr. branch manager XXXX XXXX a day before. I decide not to talk to branch manager XXXX XXXX first, instead I want to gather intel on this continuing situation, so I go to another associate with some hopes of maybe also straightening all this out but only after I got a full explanation. And I am expecting to have a conversation about compensation for my inconvenience. \n\nShe now tells me that my card is not just locked, but that somehow it has now been deactivated. \n\nIt takes 20 minutes and multiple demands for me to speak to the general manager, who I was beginning to suspect was most likely responsible for this latest surprise. When I am finally invited into his office to get my answers he admits to me ( and others standing there ), that he actually did disconnect the phone the day before when we spoke about the locked card and did so knowing full well that my ATM debit card was still in a locked status. \n\nHe even admits and acknowledges that our discussion had been at that time about my dissatisfaction with : A ) my ATM card becoming locked and its associated inconvenience, B ) not being notified beforehand, or at least shortly thereafter when my ATM card was locked, C ) and also, with not being able to discuss with anyone other than him at 5/3rd about A ) and B ) from above as to why my ATM card was locked. \n\nThese are all admitted acknowledgements that I have brought to his attention the day before about my ATM card being locked and that I am bringing to his attention that I need fixed right then as we were speaking on the phone. I was trying to tell this Branch manager on the phone that I want to talk to a badged 5/3rd employee about this matter and not some outsourced 3rd party in a foreign country who just reads off a general, unspecific copy/pasted script, but I did not get the chance before being disconnected. \n\nKeep in mind an ATM card deactivation is very different than the card being placed on locked status. \n* An ATM card lock happens all the time with backend security automation, and they are usually but not always accompanied with automatic texts and calls notifying the affected ATM card holder ( which did not happen ), but they are ... NOT ... ATM card deactivation. \n\n* An ATM card deactivation is entirely a different thing. Deactivations involve much separate set of protocols and s.o.p.s. and is never allowed to be automated by software in any banking institution per adopted federal and state guidelines. These guidelines pertain to required communication with the card holder prior too or just after a deactivation. \n\nNow we have the 2 isolated events 1 and 3 that should not normally happen in succession and certainly not as a sequentially chained automation process [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Event 3 ].\n\nThese three events do not yet suggest strongly that something is amiss with backend security processes but are the precursor for general cause for concern for upcoming successive evidence exhibits. \n\n[ Exhibit A ] : No alerts are ever dispatched to me my phone about my ATM debit cards deactivation. \nI was never notified either for the lock that was placed on my ATM the 2 days prior too and most importantly after the cards deactivation. In fact, it was not until ( XX/XX/2021 ) inside the XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I found out was not only locked, but now deactivated. \n\n[ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Event 3 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit A ] has its own autonomous processes. It generally is initialized with a call from a call center, or many times can often precede a manual deactivation [ Event 2 ] by the person who manually deactivates the card but make no mistake [ Exhibit A ] can never be deliberately skipped all together and an institution that skipped this process would be in violation of Federal guidelines if it was.\n\nI was never notified, by any means, when the card went to deactivated status, [ Event 2 ], on Friday night ( XX/XX/2021 ). Those federally required automatic notifications, require all banking institutions to immediately contact the effected account holder by 2 of 3 means. The automated notification process that is normally triggered immediately by a card deactivation did not occur. \n\nThe mere absence of these mandatory alerts and notifications suggests some kind manual override has taken place by someone who would have had those executive privileges to do so. These three events together suggest possibly someone internal to 5/3rd backend security, most likely someone manually disabled those automatic alerts that would have informed me of my cards deactivated status. The system that automatically dispatches those notifications, if left alone, would have been sent immediately and automatically to my phone upon my cards deactivation, but were not. \n\n[ Exhibit B ] : Evidence that the ATM card automatic re-issuance system was disabled. \nThis system should have dispatched a new card immediately and automatically as well upon my card deactivation but did not.\n\nNow we have isolated events : [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit B ] Neither did this notification process contact me to confirm a correct mailing address, nor was I was never mailed a new card automatically by the backend automatic ATM debit card reissuance process.\n\nSo, whoever deactivated my ATM card [ Event 2 ] also went a step farther with disabling notifications and [ Exhibit A ] then went a step farther with [ Exhibit B ] manually disabling 5/3rd banks internal processes to reissue a new card. What these actor ( s ) dont realize is that this potentially jeopardized my life, and not just my inability to pay for something like a restaurant meal.\n\nBanking institutions reserve the right to manually deactivate any clients ATM cards that they deem necessary, and as much, and as often as they deem necessaryas long as they meet one federally mandated requirement.\n\nWhat banking institutions do not reserve a right to do, is deactivate a persons ATM card, and then also disable the means of notifying that affected cardholder about it as well. When this happens, then there is evidence of critical security violations ( not just one ) have occurred either at once or in tandem and are just cause for further inquiries be made by regulating authorities to assess the danger that these infractions may have to users. In many cases an automatically dialed person to person phone call is made prior too or in real time to the affected card holder before deactivation ever occurs if not a direct phone call from the G.M. \n\nHow did my 5/3rd ATM card get deactivated with no disclosure? \n\n[ Exhibit C ] : XXXX XXXX branch manager XXXX XXXX manually issues a new card, the next day, on behalf of the disabled ATM card automatic re-issuance system mentioned above. \n[ Exhibit C ] even occurs, the next day when I go into the XXXX XXXX branch and branch manager XXXX XXXX says, let me go ahead and send a card out to you now. \n\nNow we have isolated events : [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit B ] [ Exhibit C ] This is significant because branch manager XXXX XXXX is now manually doing what should have already been done automatically by an autonomous process but did not. \n\nAll these events and exhibits suggests at a very minimum that 5/3rd bank has such lax internal security measures that it could allow in some manner a clients card to become locked, then deactivated and without notice. Is this repeatable on a massive scale?\n\nSleepy unconcerned District Manager on the phone.\n\nWhen I brought all of this to a district managers attention a couple days later, who is over branch manager XXXX XXXX, he literally fell asleep on the phone, while I was talking to him. When he called me back generically apologizing for my overall bad experience ... he could not recall what I said in particular when I questioned him about the things I had been discussing when his phone went silent for 30 plus seconds.\n\n Multiple disconnects by XXXX. supervisors who would not transfer to the presidents office. \nAttempted to get the president office phone number to convey this whole experience for over 20 plus different calls amounting to 5 hours total of phone time and was disconnected by a supervisor each time. I had to wait to get to each one of those supervisors for over 25 minutes each time. Was finally able to hack my way in through a mortgage sales line phone number and talk to a XXXX salesperson, who was actually very helpful and even demonstrated concerned with my experience at 5/3rd.\n\nExperienced the worst of all customer service when I spoke to XXXX with my second call back into the 5/3rds Presidents office. \nThen after originally speaking to XXXX, who was also helpful, I spoke to another rep, XXXX, in what was supposed to be just a quick call back to the presidents office to just confirm a few questions about fees. XXXX appeared to be uninterested, callous, and deliberately unhelpful. I asked politely to be transferred back to XXXX, where I could pick up where I left off with XXXX and was told by XXXX that she will be taking over my case. Then XXXX with the same insincere, mono-tone told me that I would be also incurring additional fees to my 5/3rd account as well to the ones that I had already picked up from other severed auto-billing relationships due to the cards deactivation. \n\n\nAccrued fees as a result of the unnecessary deactivation Fees accrued at my apartment complex where I tried to pay a bill and assessed a {$6.00} fee and then, and a fee with the city of XXXX XXXX XXXXt where my account assessed {$35.00}. Comes to a current total of XXXX. There may be more fees. \n\n\n5/3rd Corporate Security Officer who calls me on the phone and tells me he is closing the account My account was closed by Corporate Security Officer who called me out of the blue and was not remotely concerned with hearing about any of the security concerns. He became interruptive on the call and then hung up the phone and closed the account. \n\n\n\nGood questions that the CPFB could pose to 5/3rd bank might be..\n\n1. How do locked cards pose less of a threat to the customer such that an additional security measure such as a deactivation need to be taken if it remains unaffected in locked status?\n\n2. Were the usual alert notifications that would have notified the affected card holder manually, ( or willfully ) disabled somehow in some subtle, or not so subtle, way by 5/3rd employees with executive privileges to do so.\n\n3. If a locked card was never supposed to go to deactivated status then how was it this one- time event?\n\nPut another way..\n\nIf 5/3rds legal team just copies and paste an explanation as a response to the CFPB ( or.. some future civil or criminal prosecution team that will be using this narrative as supplemental evidence of a pattern of negligence due to non-compliance ), then how is there not a potential pattern hazardous reoccurring repeatable issues at least addressed here?\n\n4. Have the concerns for account and card holder safety and notifications within the ATM card deactivation process brought forth in this complaint mostly fallen on deaf corporate ears? Or can they show proof of demonstrate measures taken to prevent no-notification deactivations from ever occurring to its customers again. \n\n\n\n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-06T12:34:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"37086","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4982875","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-12-07T13:35:24.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My objective with this <em>complaint</em> It is objective to bring to the proper authorities within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a complete <em>narrative</em> of my experience with 5/3rd bank. I will try to capture the entire experience here in this comprehensive <em>narrative</em> so that any additional violations that I may fail to address can be revealed to investigators who could take corrective action."]},"sort":[6.5371103,"4982875"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3377928","_score":5.493788,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Complaint against Gregory Funding, mortgage loan servicer We are submitting this narrative explanation in attempt to resolve the multiple problems and errors we have encountered as our home mortgage loan has been transferred multiple times during the past 6 months. Our original mortgage loan was owned and serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Starting in early XXXX, we began experiencing a decrease in income due to several factors effecting XXXX business ( we are both small business owners of our own businesses ). We had difficulties paying our mortgage intermittently, and at the same time, our monthly mortgage payment was raised by XXXX due to requirements of us purchasing flood insurance. XXXX income started to stabilize this year and we thought we could get caught up with XXXX XXXX right at the time that they began foreclosure on our loan. We immediately applied for home preservation assistance with them, completing an application through their online application portal. We received written notice from them that we had been approved for a home loan modification, in which they would take the amount of unpaid payments and attach them onto the term of our current loan, extending the length of the loan. Part of the agreement was that we would make three months of elevated payments during a trial period, at the conclusion of which our loan would be modified. After we had made our second payment of the three, we received notification that our loan had been sold but they would still be the servicer. Then we received notice that our loan would be transferred to a different loan servicer, but that all agreements of our current loan would be honored. We were very concerned that our loan was being transferred without the modification agreement completed, however we felt we had no choice but to trust that the system would work. \nOur loan was transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX. We made multiple calls asking about the completion of our loan modification. XXXX told us to continue making the elevated payment and that our loan documents were in their underwriters department getting reviewed before loan modification. We made the third of our three month trial period payment to XXXX, and then we made a fourth elevated payment to them as they said they were still reviewing our loan documents. They sent us multiple batches of conflicting documents, including who our personal loan contact would be, multiple copies of applications for home assistance, etc. Then, the end of XXXX we received notification that our loan was being transferred again, to Gregory Funding. We were extremely frustrated that we still had no resolution to our loan modification agreement that we had entered in to with XXXX back in XXXX. \nWe went through the same process with Gregory Funding, multiple calls with no one being able to tell us what the status of the loan modification was, what our monthly loan payment should be, what our escrow account balance was, and most importantly, where all of our monthly payments were going or how they were being applied to our loan. Gregory Funding told us multiple times to withhold payment until they completed reviewing all of our documents, so we did not pay them in XXXX. We received a statement of total debt from them that we feel contains multiple errors and we sent them a written dispute regarding the errors as follows : 1. They show us as having made no monthly payments from XXXX through XXXX. We did not make a mortgage payment in XXXX because we were in the process of applying for home preservation assistance with XXXX and they told us to wait and make the first of the three trial period payments in XXXX. We have made elevated monthly payments during XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, for XXXX payment. \n2. There are charges for interest listed on the statement from Gregory Funding that have no explanation. \n3. There is no itemized accounting of our escrow account, which should contain approximately {$2500.00} for our property taxes which are due in XXXX. \nGF called us the beginning of XXXX demanding our late payment. We explained to the representative who called us that we had called multiple times asking what amount we should pay and were told repeatedly to not make a payment yet. The representative looked through their system notes and found the notes from our prior calls. He then said that we needed to make one more elevated payment to be able to complete the loan modification. So we went ahead and made the late XXXX payment to them. \nGregory Funding has not attempted to complete our loan modification, per our agreement with our original loan owner and servicer. They seem to have no information about the monthly payments we have made, they have provided no explanation of how they determined any interest amounts, and have provided no explanation of our escrow account balance. They were not able to give us any loan information for weeks after our loan was transferred to them and they gave us conflicting information, e.g., when they advised us to withhold payment, they turned around and told us our payment was late. We feel that we have been mistreated through this process of being strung along, servicer by servicer, without anyone being accountable to the agreement we had made with XXXX to modify our home loan by taking the past due amounts and adding them onto the end of our loan. \nAccording to our records, we were charged by XXXX in XXXX for a full year of flood insurance, in a corporate account, which caused our monthly mortgage payment to be elevated by appx $ 300.00/ month. We do not know if we were credited back the unused portion of that term when we bought our own flood insurance in XXXX, or if that policy transferred with the transfer of our loan. \nFurthermore, It is not our responsibility to have to keep account of our loan interest, escrow balance, and total amount due as our loan has been transferred repeatedly. It is the responsibility of our loan servicer to provide us with accurate information, and to keep track of this information as it is passed between servicers, and we feel that this has not happened. \n\n\n\nTimeline of Mortgage Lender Problems XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX unable to make consistent mortgage payments to XXXX ; some months unable to make any payments, some months one or 1.5 times regular payment were made. {$1200.00} is the normal mortgage payment amount, however XXXX had increased the monthly payment to {$1600.00}, stating {$360.00} per month needed for escrow account to cover lender-purchased property flood insurance. This contributed to inability to make monthly mortgage payment consistently. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX received notice from XXXX that mortgage loan was in foreclosure due to number of missed and/or late payments. XXXX  and XXXX  called XXXX and requested assistance for help to avoid foreclosure. As per instructions, completed application for home preservation assistance including attaching XXXX personal tax returns, individual business profit and loss statements, and written narrative explaining the financial difficulties contributing to temporary inability to pay mortgage consistently. XXXX explained that the request for help would stop progression of the foreclosure process. Received email contact from XXXX  home preservation specialists with link to XXXX home preservation web portal. XXXX  and XXXX  submitted initial application for loan modification within XXXX portal. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received letter from XXXX stating XXXX and XXXX were approved for mortgage assistance, with agreement of three trial period monthly payments in amount of {$1900.00}, with due dates of XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX called XXXX to accept offer for mortgage assistance program, with confirmation number given as : XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received letter from XXXX stating as of XX/XX/XXXX our application was complete. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX made 1st trial period payment of {$1900.00} by phone to XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX loaded additional requested loan modification documents into XXXX home assistance user portal, completing all lendee requirements for documentation. Remaining requirements stated to complete loan modification were completing the three months of elevated mortgage payments. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX receive written notice from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that they are the new owner of mortgage loan, and that XXXX continues to be loan servicer. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX make second trial period payment to XXXX by phone. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX receive notice from XXXX that mortgage loan is being sold/transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX effective XX/XX/XXXX, and that all terms of loan agreement will be honored by XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX  and XXXX  receive initial paper from XXXX with application for home preservation assistance. XXXX  and XXXX  called XXXX and were told that loan documents were not loaded into their system yet and to call back in 7-10 days. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX letter received from Loss Mitigation Dept. outlining options to keep home. Personal contact identified as XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX letter received stating mortgage loan was delinquent and included application for home preservation. Received separate letter from XXXX  requesting XXXX and XXXX  to provide proof of flood insurance coverage, which was pre-paid through XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX  and XXXX  call XXXX  and were told loan documents were still unavailable, but that XXXX  would honor any agreements and terms of loan from prior servicer. XXXX also stated XXXX  and XXXX did not need to complete a new home preservation assistance application because there was one already on file from XXXX. XXXX stated underwriters were reviewing the application and home loan modification documents from XXXX and the process of loan modification would be complete soon and that XXXX may choose to sell the loan or keep the loan. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received statement of Loan Balance, Escrow and Other Debt from XXXX with Total Amount Owed : {$190000.00}, with current principle of {$170000.00} ; accrued interest without any date span of {$3900.00} ; and {$14000.00} other charges not itemized. Additionally on this date, a separate letter was received from XXXX outlining options for Home Retention Assistance, with application attached, and a personal contact identified as XXXX XXXX. This was the second mailing from XXXX of this document, and a different personal contact person than original notification from XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX called XXXX to inquire on status of loan modification and were told it was not yet complete. XXXX requested payment of third/final trial period payment per XXXX agreement. XXXX  and XXXX  made phone payment to XXXX  in amount of {$1900.00}. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX  and XXXX  called XXXX, spoke to XXXX. XXXX and XXXX inquired on status of loan modification and were told loan was in underwriting department and that regular loan payments should continue to be made monthly per current/ existing agreement from XXXX/prior servicer. XXXX   and XXXX  made phone payment to XXXX  in amount of {$1900.00}, making this the 4th elevated loan payment since beginning home preservation process in XXXX with XXXX. Confirmation number for payment : XXXX. XXXX stated to expect follow-up phone call from XXXX in 7 days regarding completion of loan modification process. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received notification from XXXX stating mortgage loan would be sold/transferred to Gregory Funding effective XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received notification from XXXX stating mortgage loan would be sold/transferred to Gregory Funding effective XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Called GF, spoke to XXXX XXXX. Received new loan number of XXXX. XXXX stated no other loan information was available and to call back in 1 week. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received notification from Gregory Funding GF as new loan servicer. Total Debt Owed shown on letter of {$180000.00} : including Principle Balance of {$170000.00} ; unpaid interest from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX of {$4100.00} ; escrow advance balance of {$4600.00} ; Corporate Advance Balance of XXXX ; and Suspense of {$1900.00}. Letter stated if amount owed was of disputed validity, written notification must be received within 30 days. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Called GF to inquire on loan transfer status and expected amount and due date for XXXX payment, and to inquire about completion of loan modification. GF told XXXX and XXXX that loan documents were in process of being loaded and advised against making any payments until all loan documentation loading was completed in 1-2 weeks. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received letter from GF Loss Mitigation Dept. notifying of servicer not having received one or more regularly scheduled loan payments and that they strongly encouraged application for assistance to remain in home. Application for home assistance program was included. Also on this date, received separate mortgage statement from GF showing amount due of {$26000.00}. This letter stated account was delinquent for unpaid monthly payments in amount of {$1600.00} for XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, with additional next payment due XX/XX/XXXX of {$1600.00}. Explanation for amount due included a monthly principle and escrow payment of {$1600.00}, {$8900.00} Fees and Charges, and {$16.00}, XXXX Overdue Payment. NOTE : XXXX  and XXXX  have been paying elevated monthly mortgage amount of {$1900.00} since XXXX without any accounting of how these funds have been applied. This is a total of {$9700.00} which is unaccounted for. NO INTEREST should be accruing from unpaid monthly mortgage payments because all monthly payments have been made AT ELEVATED THREE-MONTH TRIAL PERIOD amount. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Received Annual Escrow Disclosure Statement letter from XXXX with a beginning escrow balance of XXXX, a XXXX deposit of XXXX, and a projected escrow balance shown as XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX and XXXX mailed certified letter to GF disputing amounts owed including interest, unpaid monthly XX/XX/XXXX : Received letter from GF stating that dispute of amount owed was received and that a response would be made no later than 30 days from this date. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Called GF and spoke to XXXX who stated loan was under review and to withhold making any payment. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX from GF called XXXX to request overdue XX/XX/XXXX payment. XXXX explained that per multiple prior calls from XXXX  to GF, GF had advised us to not submit any additional payments until GF completed processing all documents. XXXX stated no new loan modification application was needed because loan modification documents were already on file. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX  called GF to make XX/XX/XXXX payment by phone. Paid monthly principle and interest {$1200.00}, plus additional {$700.00}, for total of {$1900.00}.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-18T06:41:59.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"303XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3377928","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Aspen Yo LLC","date_received":"2019-09-18T02:22:34.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["RE : <em>Complaint</em> against Gregory Funding, mortgage loan servicer We are submitting this <em>narrative</em> explanation in attempt to resolve the multiple problems and errors we have encountered as our home mortgage loan has been transferred multiple times during the past 6 months. Our original mortgage loan was owned and serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[5.493788,"3377928"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12856477","_score":4.548418,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Re : Formal Complaint Request to Remove Two Inaccurate Late Payments from Credit Reports ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to request urgent assistance regarding inaccurate and unfair credit reporting on my student loan account. Specifically, I seek the removal of two late payment entries ( for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) that currently appear on my credit reports with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. These derogatory marks pertain to a XXXXXXXX XXXX  student loan that was sold/transferred to Firstmark Services during the exact period when I was incapacitated by a critical medical hardship. I believe the continued reporting of these late payments is unjust, misleading, and not in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) given the circumstances outlined below. \n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, I was critically ill and hospitalized for extended periods, including time in an intensive care unit ( ICU ) and a subsequent psychiatric hospitalization. This was an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that left me with no ability to manage my personal or financial affairs during those months. Naturally, I could not pay bills or even stay informed about my accounts while XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX My prolonged hospitalization was entirely unplanned and beyond my control a situation no one anticipates, and XXXX that made it impossible to meet normal financial obligations. \n\nUnbeknownst to me at the time, while I was XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX sold my student loan to XXXX XXXX  ( the transfer occurred sometime in late XXXX ). Because of my medical incapacitation, I did not receive or comprehend any communications about this loan transfer. I was not checking mail or email while hospitalized, and any notification from XXXX or XXXX about a new account number, payment portal, or due date went unnoticed. As a result, I had no knowledge that my loan payments were now owed to a different servicer. In practical terms, this meant the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments went unpaid not out of neglect or refusal, but because I literally did not know where or to whom payment was due, nor was I in any condition to make payments during that timeframe. \n\nBy early XX/XX/XXXX, I had recovered enough to begin managing my finances again. Upon reviewing my accounts, I was alarmed to discover that my student loan was marked past due specifically, the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments were reported as late. This was the first time I became aware that XXXX was now the loan holder and that the loan had effectively fallen into delinquency during my illness. I immediately contacted XXXX XXXX as soon as I learned of the issue, desperate to explain the situation and resolve any problems. I informed XXXX that I had been critically ill and unaware of the transfer, and that the missed payments were a direct result of these extraordinary circumstances. \n\nDuring my call with XXXX, a supervisory representative acknowledged the situation and the confusion arising from the loans transfer. The supervisor noted that many customers had experienced similar issues when XXXX took over loans from XXXX, indicating this was a known problem. I explained that I had been hospitalized and unable to receive notices or make payments. The supervisor was sympathetic and apologized for the difficulties I faced. Most importantly, XXXX supervisor explicitly promised that the two late payments ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) would be removed from my credit reports given the extenuating circumstances. I was reassured that my situation was understood and that the credit reporting would be corrected as a courtesy and in recognition of the hardship I endured. \n\nIn addition to promising removal of the negative marks, XXXX approved me for its XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to help me get back on track. I was enrolled in a XXXX modified payment plan which substantially reduced my monthly payments for the next year ( initially to roughly 50 % of the normal payment, and later to 75 % ). I promptly accepted this modification plan and have abided by its terms since XX/XX/XXXX. This accommodation not only provided financial relief as I recovered, but it also demonstrates my good-faith effort to resolve the account once I regained the capacity to do so. The fact that XXXX offered and approved this program for me underscores that they recognized my hardship as legitimate. ( I have obtained a letter from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX confirming my enrollment in the modification program, and I am attaching a copy of this letter to support my claim. ) However, despite XXXX assurances, the late payments for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX continue to appear on all three of my credit reports as of the date of this letter. These two derogatory marks have substantially lowered my credit score and are impeding my ability to move forward financially ( for example, The presence of these late payments on my credit report has significantly hindered my ability to rent an apartment. Many landlords and property management companies review applicants ' credit histories, and negative marks such as late payments can lead to application denials or require additional security deposits. This has made the process of finding suitable housing exceedingly challenging ). More importantly, the presence of these late payments presents an incomplete and misleading narrative of my credit history. Any reviewer of my credit report sees a XXXX delinquency, but sees none of the context behind it. I feel I was misled by the servicer into believing this issue would be fixed promptly, yet months later the harmful credit reporting remains. In its current state, my credit report does not accurately reflect my creditworthiness or intentions it instead reflects a breakdown in communication during a XXXX XXXX \n\nI contend that the continued reporting of these two late payments is not only unfair, but also in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRAs fundamental purpose is to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, as XXXX declared in its findings. In fact, XXXX noted that inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence. In line with this purpose, the FCRA imposes a duty on companies that furnish information to credit bureaus to report data that is truthful, accurate, and not misleading. Under Section 623 of the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ), a furnisher must not report information it knows or has reason to believe is inaccurate. Once I notified XXXX of the errors and my extraordinary situation, they had more than enough reason to believe the prior negative reporting was incorrect or at least contextually wrong. Continuing to report those late payments despite the clear evidence of my medical emergency and XXXX own acknowledgment of confusion appears to be a direct breach of their obligations under the FCRA. Furthermore, the FCRAs reinvestigation provisions ( Section 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i, and corresponding furnisher duties in 1681s-2 ( b ) ) require that if an investigation finds information to be incomplete or inaccurate, that information must be promptly corrected or deleted so it does not continue to mislead. In this case, the reporting of these late payments without any notation of the circumstances is incomplete and thus inaccurate in effect, and it should have been corrected by removing the late payment entries as soon as the situation was explained. \n\nIn addition, I want to emphasize that even if one were to argue the late payment notations are factually true in isolation ( i.e. a payment due in XXXX was marked late in XXXX ), the context renders them materially misleading. Courts have held that a credit entry can be technically accurate yet still violate the FCRA if it creates a misleading impression about a consumers creditworthiness. In other words, information that is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions is considered inaccurate under the FCRA. Here, the reporting of a XXXX delinquency ( December 2024January 2025 ) on my loan creates a severely misleading impression : it suggests that I simply failed to pay my debt for two months, when in reality I was fighting for my life in the hospital and was never even aware of the need to pay a different servicer. Any lender or creditor viewing my report would draw the false conclusion that I was financially irresponsible during that period, which is absolutely not the case. This kind of omission of critical context is materially misleading by any measure, as it hides the true cause of the delinquency. I firmly believe that the current credit reporting on my loan is exactly the sort of unjust outcome the FCRA was designed to prevent. For the credit reporting system to be fair, it must take into account situations like mine and avoid penalizing a consumer for circumstances wholly outside their control. \n\nMoreover, CFPBs own guidance to furnishers and creditors encourages a flexible and empathetic approach in scenarios where consumers face serious hardships or life-altering events. During the XXXX pandemic, for example, the CFPB underscored that consumers benefit when lenders are flexible with payment accommodations and report those accommodations accurately ( rather than reporting the loans as delinquent ). The XXXX explicitly encourages lenders to continue to voluntarily provide payment relief to consumers and to report accurate information to credit bureaus relating to this relief. In other words, regulators expect furnishers to work constructively with borrowers in hardship and to ensure that credit reporting reflects any relief measures or agreements in place, instead of unfairly punishing the consumers credit record. While my situation was a personal medical crisis rather than a global pandemic, the underlying principle remains the same. I acted in good faith by promptly communicating and cooperating with my loan servicer once I was able, and the servicer in turn had a responsibility to handle my account with appropriate care and accuracy. Furnishers are expected to exercise discretion and not report derogatory information in a manner that misrepresents the consumers circumstances. In my case, rather than rigidly reporting two missed payments caused by a documented medical incapacity, the servicer should have taken the promised corrective action to ensure my credit report stayed accurate and fair. Failing to do so goes against both the letter and spirit of CFPBs guidance on credit reporting in the face of hardships. \n\nRequested Resolution : I respectfully request that the CFPB assist me in having the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX late payment entries removed from my credit reports with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. This adjustment is necessary to bring my credit profile back into alignment with the true facts and the FCRAs standards of accuracy. Given the circumstances detailed above my severe illness, the confusion surrounding the loans transfer, and XXXX own indication that the reporting would be fixed I believe that the removal of these derogatory marks is both warranted and urgently needed. I have already attempted to resolve this directly with the servicer ; however, since the issue remains unresolved despite their promises, I am turning to the CFPBs intervention. I am asking the XXXX to enforce my rights under federal law by ensuring that the furnishers involved ( XXXX  ) XXXX the information they are providing to the credit bureaus. In practical terms, this means updating my credit files so that no late payment is reported for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( the months in question should have no negative mark at all ). This outcome will correct the record to accurately reflect my credit history and restore my good standing. I would appreciate confirmation once these late payments have been deleted across all three bureaus, and I welcome any other guidance the CFPB can provide in preventing such issues from harming consumers in the future. \n\nSupporting Documentation : To further support my claim, I have attached a copy of a letter from XXXX XXXX ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming my approval for the Student Loan Modification Program. This letter serves as evidence that XXXX acknowledged my situation and took steps to accommodate my hardship. It validates that I was actively working with the servicer in good faith and that they were aware of my medical issues. I believe this document, in conjunction with the explanation above, clearly illustrates that the negative credit reporting was an oversight that should have been rectified. Should you require any additional documentation, I am ready to provide hospital discharge papers, doctors letters, or any records necessary to substantiate the timeline and severity of my illness. My goal is simply to ensure my credit report is complete and accurate, as the law requires, and that I am not unfairly penalized for an event beyond my control. \n\nThank you very much for your time and consideration of this complaint. I trust that the CFPB will investigate this matter thoroughly and use its good offices to uphold the protections afforded to consumers under the FCRA. I have been a responsible borrower, and I hope that with the XXXX help, my credit reports will soon be corrected to remove any misleading information related to this incident. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any further information is needed. I look forward to a prompt and fair resolution of this issue so that I can put this difficult chapter behind me and rebuild my financial standing on accurate information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T23:05:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"20832","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12856477","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-07T22:42:58.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Re : Formal <em>Complaint</em> Request to Remove Two Inaccurate Late Payments from Credit Reports ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal <em>complaint</em> with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to request urgent assistance regarding inaccurate and unfair credit reporting on my student loan account."]},"sort":[4.548418,"12856477"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321378","_score":3.4573274,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal <em>complaints</em>. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit <em>narrative</em> that is unsupported by the actual payment history."]},"sort":[3.4573274,"13321378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13318699","_score":3.4573274,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13318699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal <em>complaints</em>. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit <em>narrative</em> that is unsupported by the actual payment history."]},"sort":[3.4573274,"13318699"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321520","_score":3.4508536,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321520","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T20:55:45.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal <em>complaints</em>. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit <em>narrative</em> that is unsupported by the actual payment history."]},"sort":[3.4508536,"13321520"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":12,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":12}]}},"product":{"doc_count":12,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting 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":3},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":12,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denials","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","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":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":12,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":12}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":12,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":12,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":12}]}},"company":{"doc_count":12,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aspen Yo LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":12,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MI","doc_count":3},{"key":"AR","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":12,"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":6}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":12,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_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":{}}}