{"took":116,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":4,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18056556","_score":22.196318,"_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":["The Violation : On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, <em>Early</em> Warning Services concluded a reinvestigation into a disputed XXXX  XXXX XXXX account ( Case ID : XXXX ). In their final <em>results</em>, they stated : \" It has been determined that the information contained in your file is accurate and complete ''."],"company":["<em>Early</em> Warning Services, LLC"]},"sort":[22.196318,"18056556"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18054883","_score":9.064217,"_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":[": XX/XX/XXXX Extended Contract Deadline : XX/XX/XXXX <em>Complaint</em> Filed With : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Nature of <em>Complaint</em> : Unfair, deceptive, inconsistent, and non-FHA-compliant underwriting practices <em>resulting</em> in severe contract risk and harm to consumer."]},"sort":[9.064217,"18054883"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4982875","_score":6.9930215,"_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 <em>investigators</em> who could take corrective action."]},"sort":[6.9930215,"4982875"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12856477","_score":5.9786215,"_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":["As a <em>result</em>, 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 <em>early</em> XX/XX/XXXX, I had recovered enough to begin managing my finances again."]},"sort":[5.9786215,"12856477"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":4,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":4}]}},"product":{"doc_count":4,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","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":4,"issue":{"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":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","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}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":4,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":4}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":4,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":4}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":4,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":4}]}},"company":{"doc_count":4,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":4,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":4,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},"tags":{"doc_count":4,"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":{}}}