{"took":312,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":218,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12322679","_score":19.731941,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I previously submitted a complaint regarding the unauthorized access of my federal student loan records ( Case # XXXX ), but the response provided by Nelnet failed to address my concerns. Nelnet issued a generic response about compliance laws but did not confirm or deny whether my student loan records were accessed, altered, or transferred without my authorization. \n\nKey Issues in the Original Response : Nelnet did not provide an access log showing whether unauthorized access occurred.\n\nNelnet did not confirm or deny whether my records were accessed without my consent. \nNelnet did not outline any investigation into potential unauthorized access. \nGiven the seriousness of a potential breach of my personal and financial data, I am formally requesting the CFPB re-open my complaint and require Nelnet to provide specific answers to the following : Was my student loan data accessed or modified by an unauthorized party? \nProvide a detailed log of all access attempts to my loan records. \nWhat investigation, if any, has Nelnet conducted into this potential breach? \nWhat safeguards has Nelnet implemented to ensure my private data is protected moving forward? \nAdditionally, I request that the Department of Education investigate Nelnets handling of my records and determine whether a data breach occurred. If Nelnet is unwilling to provide this information, I will escalate my concerns to the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). \n\nThis issue requires immediate attention, and I request a full investigation and response within 30 days.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-05T22:24:32.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"902XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12322679","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-05T22:17:17.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nelnet issued a generic response about <em>compliance</em> <em>laws</em> but did not <em>confirm</em> or <em>deny</em> <em>whether</em> my student loan records were accessed, altered, or transferred without my authorization. \n\nKey Issues in the Original Response : Nelnet did not provide an access log showing <em>whether</em> unauthorized access occurred.\n\nNelnet did not <em>confirm</em> or <em>deny</em> <em>whether</em> my records were accessed without my consent. \nNelnet did not outline any investigation into potential unauthorized access."]},"sort":[19.731941,"12322679"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19006944","_score":17.839592,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding Truist Banks handling of a XXXX transfer error and failure to conduct a complete investigation under Regulation E. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/year> I sent a {$3000.00} XXXX payment to an email address I had successfully used for over three years to pay rent to the same recipient. I later learned that the email address was no longer enrolled with XXXX, and the intended recipient did not receive the funds. \n\nTruist denied my claim stating only that the transaction appears to be authorized. Truist did not determine or disclose whether the recipient was enrolled at the time of the transfer, whether the funds were accepted, or whether the funds remain pending or unclaimed within the XXXX network. \n\nAuthorization alone does not establish completion or receipt. Truists response fails to satisfy the investigation requirements of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which require determining whether an electronic transfer error occurred. \n\nTruists own correspondence states they are attempting to recover the funds from the receiving institution, indicating the transfer may not have been completed. Despite this, Truist has refused to credit my account. \n\nI am requesting that Truist : 1. Conduct a complete Regulation E investigation 2. Confirm the enrollment and acceptance status of the recipient 3. Return the {$3000.00} if the funds were not accepted by an enrolled recipient 4. Provide written documentation supporting their determination I am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure compliance with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-26T16:21:44.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33160","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19006944","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-01-26T15:58:52.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Confirm</em> the enrollment and acceptance status of the recipient 3. Return the {$3000.00} if the funds were not accepted by an enrolled recipient 4. Provide written documentation supporting their determination I am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure <em>compliance</em> with federal <em>law</em>."]},"sort":[17.839592,"19006944"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19218687","_score":17.013954,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On, I applied for financing for a preowned vehicle through the dealerships recommended lender. The total amount I requested was approximately {$15000.00}. I provided all required documentation at the time of the application, including proof of income, employment information, and identification. \n\nAfter submitting the application, I was told by the dealership that the lender had denied the loan. I was not given a clear explanation for the denial, nor was I provided with any written notice outlining the specific reasons, despite being told that I would receive one. As of today, XX/XX/year>, I still have not received an adverse action notice or any communication directly from the lender explaining the decision. \n\nI attempted to follow up with the dealership and the lender to understand the basis for the denial and to confirm whether my application was reviewed accurately. I was unable to obtain any meaningful information from either party. I am filing this complaint because I believe I am entitled to a clear explanation of the decision, as well as confirmation that my application was handled properly and in compliance with applicable consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-03T19:21:56.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"636XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19218687","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-02-03T18:47:16.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit denial"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I attempted to follow up with the dealership and the lender to understand the basis for the denial and to <em>confirm</em> <em>whether</em> my application was reviewed accurately. I was unable to obtain any meaningful information from either party. I am filing this complaint because I believe I am entitled to a clear explanation of the decision, as well as confirmation that my application was handled properly and in <em>compliance</em> with applicable consumer protection <em>laws</em>."]},"sort":[17.013954,"19218687"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14021267","_score":15.564965,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint in response to an adverse action notice I received from American Credit Acceptance regarding a denied credit application.\n\nI have reason to believe that my application or associated financial instrument was monetized, transferred, or assigned without full disclosure or my informed consent. Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ), Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and the legal definition of a creditor under 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 4 ), I have demanded verification of the original creditors identity and documentation showing whether American Credit Acceptance acted as a creditor, assignee, or third-party servicer. \n\nAdditionally, I believe the structure of this transaction operates as a constructive trust with myself as both grantor and beneficiary and the institution acting in a trustee capacity. Therefore, any monetization or third-party involvement without disclosure constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, deceptive practice, and unjust enrichment. \n\nI submitted a formal rebuttal and demand for full disclosure directly to the company and request that the CFPB enforce their obligation to respond with transparency, identify all parties involved in the assignment or sale of my credit instrument, and confirm their legal standing as a creditor. \n\nI am seeking a full accounting, all related documents, and a review of their compliance with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-11T21:11:00.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"274XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14021267","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","date_received":"2025-06-11T20:56:05.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit denial"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I submitted a formal rebuttal and demand for full disclosure directly to the company and request that the CFPB enforce their obligation to respond with transparency, identify all parties involved in the assignment or sale of my credit instrument, and <em>confirm</em> their legal standing as a creditor. \n\nI am seeking a full accounting, all related documents, and a review of their <em>compliance</em> with federal consumer protection <em>laws</em>."]},"sort":[15.564965,"14021267"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19122399","_score":15.546532,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX. Summary of Incident On today, I visited the retail location in XXXX XXXX XXXX which was flagged in connection with an unauthorized Acima account created under my identity. Despite arriving in person and presenting both a police report and a valid restraining order, I was denied basic information about the transaction that occurred under my name. \n\nThis behavior constitutes obstruction of an identity theft investigation and violates consumer rights under both the FCRA and FACTA Identity Theft Red Flags Rule, which require covered businesses and service providers to assist with identity fraud resolution in good faith. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Background : Acima Fraud Pattern This visit was part of a broader effort to investigate fraud stemming from identity misuse by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who has used my identity to obtain goods and services under false pretenses, including : Multiple unauthorized applications using my SSN, DOB, and fake employment Acima accounts tied to locations I have never shopped at or authorized transactions with Addresses, emails, and bank routing numbers submitted fraudulently Acimas own internal systems have shown my name tied to rental accounts or approvals in areas and timelines that coincide with the known fraud. \n\nXXXX. Retailers Violation of Duty The retailer in question : Denied having any relationship with Acima, contradicting the approval record. \nRefused to search for records, even with a police report in hand. \nFailed to provide the name or date of the person who made the transaction, blocking a critical component of due process and justice. \n\nTheir refusal directly impedes : Law enforcement from confirming the fraudulent use of my identity Acima from fully investigating and terminating the fraudulent account My legal right to dispute and resolve the fraudulent tradeline XXXX. Your Immediate Obligations as Acima As a financial servicer bound by federal regulation, you are required to : XXXX. Immediately suspend or freeze the account in question until identity verification is completed. \nXXXX. Issue a written confirmation of all data tied to this account : email used, phone number, IP address, store location, items purchased, and delivery/pickup records. \nXXXX. Engage the retailer directly and compel their cooperation based on your internal compliance policy. \nXXXX. Confirm whether the goods were returned, remain unpaid, or are in collections and whether any signature or ID was used at the time of pickup.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-30T03:16:59.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"90650","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19122399","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ACIMA CREDIT, LLC","date_received":"2026-01-30T03:11:21.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Engage the retailer directly and compel their cooperation based on your internal <em>compliance</em> policy. \nXXXX. <em>Confirm</em> <em>whether</em> the goods were returned, remain unpaid, or are in collections and <em>whether</em> any signature or ID was used at the time of pickup."]},"sort":[15.546532,"19122399"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18427068","_score":15.243048,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am disputing a charge in the amount of approximately {$4800.00} for roofing services performed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The work was defective at the time it was performed and did not conform to industry standards or the agreed-upon service. The contractor installed asphalt shingles on a low-slope roof that does not meet minimum manufacturer or building code pitch requirements for shingles. Multiple independent contractors later confirmed that the installation was improper and that a rubber roofing system should have been used. As a result of the improper installation, the roof began leaking shortly after completion under normal conditions. I attempted multiple times to contact the contractor to address the defective work, but the contractor was unresponsive and did not provide remediation. I submitted a dispute to Capital One upon discovering and confirming the defect. Capital One initially issued a provisional credit for the disputed amount. However, on or about XX/XX/2025 Capital One reversed the provisional credit and reapplied the charge to my account. I contacted Capital One by phone and was verbally informed that the dispute was denied based on an asserted 120-day internal policy. I was not provided with a written denial or a written explanation addressing the Fair Credit Billing Act provisions related to nonconforming or defective services. The only explanation provided was verbal. I believe the charge qualifies as a billing error under the Fair Credit Billing Act because the services were not delivered as agreed and the defect was not immediately discoverable at the time of installation. I am requesting that Capital One properly review this dispute in compliance with applicable federal law and provide a written explanation of its decision. \n\nUpdate from original case # XXXX I am uploading five separate letters from Capital One regarding the same dispute Capitol One ( Case Number : XXXX ), all dated XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThese letters contain multiple, conflicting explanations for denying and closing my dispute regarding a {$23000.00} charge from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX  ), including : Statements that the dispute was denied solely because the 60-day timeframe had expired Statements that Capital One opened an investigation, requested documentation, received my response, and evaluated the merits Statements that my documentation was insufficient, without identifying what information was missing or providing an opportunity to cure Confirmation that Capital One previously issued a provisional credit of {$4800.00}, followed by reapplication of the charge These explanations are mutually exclusive. A dispute can not simultaneously be time-barred and fully investigated on the merits. The issuance of provisional credit further confirms that the dispute was accepted for review. \nCapital One failed to clearly communicate required documentation, failed to identify any alleged deficiencies, and issued multiple inconsistent closure notices for the same case. At no point was I provided a clear, reasonable opportunity to supplement my submission. \nI am requesting CFPB review of Capital Ones dispute handling practices, including whether a reasonable and good-faith investigation was conducted and whether the dispute was improperly denied through inconsistent or automated processes rather than a substantive review.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-02T19:54:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"52001","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18427068","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-01-02T19:22:46.000Z","state":"IA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting that Capital One properly review this dispute in <em>compliance</em> with applicable federal <em>law</em> and provide a written explanation of its decision."]},"sort":[15.243048,"18427068"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12139195","_score":15.080317,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Todays date XX/XX/XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing a formal complaint against USAA regarding their improper handling of a fraudulent transaction dispute on my account. Despite providing substantial evidence, USAA has wrongfully denied my claim and refuses to acknowledge the fraud. \n\nDetails of the Issue : Financial Institution : USAA Disputed Transactions : XX/XX/XXXX {$1000.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$2800.00} Claim Status : Initially denied, reopened upon my request, and then denied again. \nReason Given by USAA : They claim that a chip was used and, therefore, it was not fraud. \n\nWhy This Decision is Incorrect : XXXX. Unauthorized Use of My Card and Personal Information Whether the transactions were made with a chip or not, I did not authorize them. \nMy card details and phone number were compromised, which I have proven through supporting documentation. \nXXXX. Identity Theft Documentation Provided I filed an identity theft report with law enforcement and submitted it to USAA, along with proof that someone accessed my phone number and card information. \nUSAA refuses to consider this evidence in their review. \nXXXX. Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation USAA did not provide a valid explanation beyond stating a chip was used. \nTheir refusal to reconsider my claim disregards my legal protections under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), which requires banks to conduct a reasonable investigation into unauthorized transactions. \n\nRequested Resolution : Reopen my fraud claim and conduct a proper review of the submitted evidence. \nEnsure compliance with federal regulations regarding consumer protection and fraud investigations. \n\nUSAAs failure to properly investigate this matter has caused financial hardship and stress. I am seeking CFPB intervention to ensure my case is fairly reviewed. \n\nPlease confirm receipt of this complaint and provide information on the next steps.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-19T15:11:32.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90029","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12139195","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-02-19T14:57:47.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Ensure <em>compliance</em> with federal regulations regarding consumer protection and fraud investigations. \n\nUSAAs failure to properly investigate this matter has caused financial hardship and stress. I am seeking CFPB intervention to ensure my case is fairly reviewed. \n\nPlease <em>confirm</em> receipt of this complaint and provide information on the next steps."]},"sort":[15.080317,"12139195"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18438563","_score":14.920422,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Bank of America for failure to comply with Regulation E regarding an unauthorized transaction totaling {$4800.00}.\n\nMy account was used without my authorization. I reported the unauthorized transaction to Bank of America and requested that the amount be credited back to my account as required under Regulation E.\n\nBank of America denied my dispute twice. The sole basis provided for denial was that account statements were mailed to my correct address and that payments were made on the account. This rationale is not supported by Regulation E and does not relieve the bank of its obligation to investigate and credit unauthorized electronic fund transfers. \n\nWhether a statement was received or a payment was made is irrelevant under Regulation E. What matters is that the transaction was unauthorized. Bank of America has failed to demonstrate that I authorized this transaction and has not conducted a meaningful investigation beyond confirming statement delivery.\n\nI am requesting that Bank of America immediately credit my account for the full unauthorized amount of {$4800.00} and comply with its obligations under federal law. \n\nI have spent over XXXX months attempting to resolve this directly with Bank of America, including multiple phone calls and XXXX dispute submissions. The bank has been given multiple opportunities to correct this and has failed to do so. \n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance to require Bank of America to reverse the unauthorized charge and bring the account into compliance with Regulation E.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T04:53:38.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"97015","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18438563","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-03T04:48:57.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting CFPB assistance to require Bank of America to reverse the unauthorized charge and bring the account into <em>compliance</em> with Regulation E."]},"sort":[14.920422,"18438563"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18387436","_score":14.770511,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This correspondence responds to the XXXX XXXX Notice dated XX/XX/year> regarding the denial of my XXXX  XXXX  credit card application. Your notice states the decision was based in whole or in part on information obtained from a consumer reporting agency and identifies XXXX  as the agency used, along with a disclosed score and adverse factors. The notice lists the principal reasons as : lack of real estate secured loan information ; too few bankcards with high credit limit ; balances on accounts too high compared to credit limits and loan amounts ; and too many bankcards with high balance compared to credit limit. The notice does not state any delinquency, collection activity, bankruptcy, inability to verify identity, income, employment, or residence, nor any membership ineligibility. \n\nTo ensure the adverse action is fully consistent with the disclosures provided and the requirements applicable to users of consumer reports, including 15 U.S.C. 1681m and Regulation B, 12 CFR 1002.9, I request that Alliant Credit Union provide a written response confirming XXXX of the following XXXX positions only : XXXX. Alliant confirms the denial was based solely on the reasons listed in the Adverse Action Notice and on information contained in the XXXX  consumer report used for the decision, and that no additional reason codes, underwriting criteria, policy overlays, internal risk models, internal account or relationship data, fraud or identity screening results, specialty consumer reporting agency data, affiliate data, or other non-XXXX  sources were used in any manner that contributed to the adverse determination ; or XXXX. Alliant confirms that additional reasons, criteria, or sources beyond those disclosed in the Adverse Action Notice were used in making the decision, in which case I request identification of each additional source category ( consumer reporting agency, specialty consumer reporting agency, affiliate, internal account or relationship records, fraud or identity vendor, or other third party ) and, consistent with 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( b ), disclosure of the nature of any information obtained from any person other than a consumer reporting agency that was used to deny or materially affect the decision, together with a clear statement of the additional reason or reasons actually relied upon. \n\nIf any portion of the decision involved evaluation of my consumer file under name variations, prior surnames, partial identifiers, or internal cross-referencing of identity data, please state whether such evaluation occurred and whether it materially affected the adverse action. \n\nTo preserve accuracy of the record, please confirm that the reasons stated in your response represent the complete and final basis for the adverse action as of XX/XX/year>, and that no post-decision supplementation, reclassification, or retroactive justification of the denial has occurred or will be asserted. \n\nThis request is made solely to obtain clarity and ensure accuracy and compliance. It does not admit or deny the accuracy of any information, does not concede the propriety of the decision, and does not waive any rights or remedies available under federal or state law. \n\nAll future communications regarding this matter are to be provided in writing only and mailed to my home address listed below. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-31T02:44:04.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"99208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18387436","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ALLIANT CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-12-31T02:38:43.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It does not admit or <em>deny</em> the accuracy of any information, does not concede the propriety of the decision, and does not waive any rights or remedies available under federal or state <em>law</em>. \n\nAll future communications regarding this matter are to be provided in writing only and mailed to my home address listed below. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA XXXX"]},"sort":[14.770511,"18387436"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13690659","_score":14.71351,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am following up to dispute your XX/XX/year>, decision regarding the {$710.00} transaction to XXXX XXXX. Based on your response and the documentation provided, I am not convinced that a full or fair investigation occurred. \n\nYour reply fails to identify : Who at XXXX XXXX was contacted, if anyone ; What specific documentation was obtained from the merchant beyond your internal records ; What criteria or external validation was used to confirm that the flight was fulfilled properly ; Whether my claims about the discrepancy in the flight details were directly investigated with the airline. \n\nIt appears that your investigation relied solely on internal logs and whatever limited info I sent, without any third-party verification. This raises concerns about the integrity of your dispute process and whether it aligns with Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. \n\nI am requesting a more detailed disclosure of how the investigation was conducted and any evidence obtained from XXXX XXXX to support your decision. If no such contact occurred, this constitutes a failure to perform a reasonable investigation as required under applicable law. \n\nI am prepared to escalate this further if necessary, including providing additional supporting documentation and filing with appropriate regulatory bodies, if you are unwilling to reconsider or transparently clarify your process. \n\nI expect a response that directly addresses the investigative steps you took, with supporting documentation. \n\n\nI am submitting this new complaint due to how Cash App handled my previous dispute regarding a {$710.00} charge from XXXX XXXX. While my initial concern was about a flight discrepancy, my new concern is about how Cash App responded to my dispute and whether they conducted a fair and lawful investigation. \n\nIn their XX/XX/year> response ( attached ), Cash App claims to have reviewed the dispute and denied it, stating that no error occurred. However, their reply does not provide any proof that they contacted XXXX XXXX or obtained documentation from the merchant to verify whether the service was actually provided. Instead, it appears they only reviewed internal records and what I submitted. There is no indication of any third-party verification or independent effort to confirm my claim. \n\nThis raises serious concerns under Regulation E, which requires a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes. I requested details on who they spoke to, what documentation they reviewed, and how they evaluated my claim, but none of this was addressed. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate whether Cash App met its legal obligations to conduct a proper dispute investigation and to ensure they are not improperly dismissing valid consumer claims without due process. \n\n\nXXXX. No Evidence of Merchant Contact Cash App did not indicate that they contacted XXXX XXXX at any point during the investigation. \nA proper investigation should involve direct communication with the merchant ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) to determine whether the service was rendered or if any refund/cancellation applied. \nWithout contacting the airline, there is no independent verification of whether the flight was used, refunded, or properly booked. \n\n\n\n2. Investigation Appears Limited to Internal Records Cash Apps response repeatedly refers to the information available in our system and the documentation we relied upon, without specifying the nature of those documents. \nThis strongly suggests that the investigation relied only on internal transaction logs, which only confirm that the charge was processednot whether the service was fulfilled. \nAn internal review does not satisfy the requirement of a reasonable, impartial investigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX. No Consideration of the Discrepancy in Services Rendered The original dispute raised concerns about a discrepancy with the flight, suggesting that the service received did not match what was paid for. \nCash Apps reply does not mention : Whether the details of the flight were reviewed, Whether boarding or refund records were requested from the airline, Or whether the nature of the disputed service was understood or evaluated.\n\n4. Lack of Transparency in the Investigation Process Cash App failed to : Identify who handled the investigation, Provide a timeline of investigative steps, Outline any communication with XXXX XXXX, Disclose the documents reviewed from either party. \nThis absence of transparency makes it difficult to believe that any meaningful effort was made to validate or reject the dispute. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to Meet Regulatory Standards ( Regulation E ) Under Regulation E, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable investigation, Determine whether an error occurred, Report the results and correct any errors. \nWithout merchant contact, external document review, or analysis of service fulfillment, this investigation does not meet the threshold of reasonable. \n\n\n\nConclusion Cash Apps handling of this dispute demonstrates a lack of due diligence, inadequate investigation practices, and poor transparency. I am submitting this follow-up to request that the CFPB review whether Cash App is in compliance with Regulation E, and to advocate for a more thorough, fair investigation into my claim. \n\nThank you for continuing to advocate for fair financial practices. Please let me know if additional documentation is needed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T21:52:13.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"068XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13690659","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-23T21:41:20.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this follow-up to request that the CFPB review <em>whether</em> Cash App is in <em>compliance</em> with Regulation E, and to advocate for a more thorough, fair investigation into my claim. \n\nThank you for continuing to advocate for fair financial practices. Please let me know if additional documentation is needed."]},"sort":[14.71351,"13690659"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19669484","_score":14.652044,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I paid USD XXXX via PayPal Goods & Services for digital partnership services that were never delivered. No services, work product, access, or deliverables were ever provided despite full payment. \n\nThe individual communicating with me presented as a male via XXXX, while the PayPal account receiving the funds was registered to a female name. This identity discrepancy raised fraud concerns. I promptly opened a PayPal Buyer Protection dispute for non-delivery. \n\nPayPal denied the claim and later closed the case. However, PayPal did not provide a clear written explanation of the investigation findings, the specific policy provision relied upon, or documentation showing that the service was delivered. I formally requested clarification regarding : The documented investigation basis for denial Whether a XXXX  chargeback was initiated or received The official chargeback reference number and status Confirmation of PayPals cooperation with my issuing bank PayPal did not provide this information. \n\nThis complaint raises new compliance and procedural concerns that were not addressed in my prior CFPB submission. The prior complaint focused primarily on denial of Buyer Protection. This submission concerns lack of chargeback transparency, failure to confirm XXXX dispute processing, and potential obstruction or delay of chargeback rights following cross-border escalation. \n\nSince the prior CFPB complaint : A formal police report has been filed in XXXX A formal police report has been filed in the XXXX My issuing bank ( XXXX XXXX ) initiated dispute proceedings A regulatory case has been opened with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I formally requested confirmation whether a XXXX  chargeback was properly initiated and processed To date, neither PayPal nor my issuing bank has provided clear written confirmation regarding whether a chargeback was properly transmitted under XXXX  rules or whether procedural delays affected chargeback timelines. \n\nThere are serious concerns that the dispute process may have been handled in a manner that lacked transparency and potentially prejudiced my chargeback rights. This matter now involves cross-border elements, regulatory oversight, and documented law enforcement reports. \n\nI am requesting regulatory review of PayPals dispute handling practices in this case, specifically regarding denial transparency, investigation standards, and chargeback process clarity.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-20T22:36:52.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19669484","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-02-20T22:20:00.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["under XXXX  rules or <em>whether</em> procedural delays affected chargeback timelines."]},"sort":[14.652044,"19669484"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19515041","_score":14.623127,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Here is a clean, self-contained narrative you can paste into the CFPB portal or a letter ( you can adjust formatting and any dates/amounts as needed ) : CFPB Complaint Pattern of Inconsistent Investigative Determinations, Inadequate Written Explanation, and Failure to Apply Uniform Billing Error Standards Account Ending : XXXX In total, I have disputed 147 transactions from this merchant family. Of those, 133 were credited and 14 were denied. During XXXX, I received {$18000.00} in security credits labeled SECURITY CREDIT ITEM UNDER INVESTIGATION tied to this merchant group, reflecting the substantial scale of disputed activity and corresponding account adjustments. Despite this volume and pattern of credits, Citibank has alternated among Security Credit Issued, Customer Responsible ( No Credit Issued ), and Credit Reversed determinations on transactions sharing materially similar characteristics, without identifying transaction-specific evidentiary distinctions. This pattern raises concerns regarding the consistency of Citibanks application of Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z billing error standards under 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13. \n\nIllustrative Transaction Comparisons Example 1 : XXXX XXXX XXXX NY {$290.00} Disputed XX/XX/XXXX Security Credit Issued ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX NY {$290.00} Disputed XX/XX/XXXX Customer Responsible ( No Credit Issued ) Example 2 : XXXX XXXX Coins {$44.00} Disputed XX/XX/XXXX Security Credit Issued Comparable merchant-family transactions Denied using identical boilerplate language. \n\nApplicable Law Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ), upon receipt of a billing error notice, a creditor must investigate and either correct the error or provide a written explanation clarifying why the charge is believed to be correct. Regulation Z requires : 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( b ) ( investigation of billing errors ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( e ) ( correction where error is found ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ) ( reasonable investigation and written explanation of results ) ; and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( g ) ( restriction on collection of disputed amounts during investigation ). A written explanation must reflect the investigation actually conducted and identify the basis upon which the creditor concluded the transaction was authorized. \n\nSignature-Packet Process Inconsistency In at least one instance, Citibank issued an Action Required packet requiring a signed consumer affirmation in response to merchant documentation asserting authorization. This demonstrates that merchant-provided materials were not treated as self-proving. However, in other materially similar disputes involving the same merchant family, Citibank issued final denials without comparable escalation or articulated differentiation. This variability raises concerns regarding uniform application of investigative standards under 1026.13 ( f ). \n\nOpacity of Investigative Basis Citibanks adverse determinations rely on boilerplate language stating : Your dispute is resolved and no credit has been issued. The letters do not identify whether AVS results were reviewed, whether CVV verification was confirmed, whether IP/device consistency was analyzed, or what evidentiary distinction justified differing outcomes among materially similar transactions. Without articulated differentiation, the written explanation requirement of 1026.13 ( f ) is not meaningfully satisfied. \n\nRequested Relief Provide transaction-specific written explanations identifying investigative findings relied upon. \n\nDisclose authentication and evidentiary data reviewed for denied transactions. \n\nConfirm whether uniform escalation procedures were applied across materially similar disputes. \n\nReevaluate denied transactions where no articulated evidentiary distinction exists.\n\nConfirm compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-15T19:05:03.000Z","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":"19515041","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-02-15T18:59:17.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Disclose authentication and evidentiary data reviewed for <em>denied</em> transactions. \n\n<em>Confirm</em> <em>whether</em> uniform escalation procedures were applied across materially similar disputes. \n\nReevaluate <em>denied</em> transactions where no articulated evidentiary distinction exists.\n\n<em>Confirm</em> <em>compliance</em> with 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13."]},"sort":[14.623127,"19515041"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22103761","_score":14.400983,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I deposited a check for {$100000.00} into my Texas Capital Bank business checking account. Before initiating any wire transfer, I contacted the bank by telephone on XX/XX/year>, to confirm whether the funds were available and whether there were any restrictions on using the funds. I was told that the funds were available and that there were no restrictions. \n\nBased on that confirmation, I proceeded in good faith and initiated a {$90000.00} wire transfer on XX/XX/year>. Had I been advised to wait for final settlement, or told that the funds were provisional and still subject to return, I would not have initiated the wire transfer. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, the bank informed me that the deposited check had been returned unpaid and charged back the {$100000.00}, creating a large negative balance. A partial recovery of {$1600.00} was later returned through interbank recovery efforts, leaving a remaining unrecovered amount of {$88000.00}. \n\nI reported the third-party fraud to law enforcement and provided the police case information to the bank. I also cooperated with the banks legal, fraud, and compliance teams and repeatedly expressed my willingness to assist with recovery efforts. \n\nThe bank later charged off and closed the account. On XX/XX/year>, the bank applied a credit of {$87000.00} to bring the account balance to zero. My concern is that approximately {$880.00} in legitimate funds was absorbed into the charged-off balance. These funds included a prior account balance and later business credits that were unrelated to the disputed wire transaction and were not proceeds of the returned check. \n\nI asked the bank to review the {$880.00} separately and return those legitimate funds. The bank responded that once the account was negative, deposits or credits would reduce the negative balance, and later denied my request because returning the funds would increase the banks overall loss. \n\nI respectfully disagree with that determination. I believe the {$880.00} should be treated separately because those funds were unrelated to the fraudulent transaction. I also believe the bank should review the XX/XX/XXXX telephone recording, because I specifically contacted the bank before acting and relied on the information provided that the funds were available and there were no restrictions. \n\nI am requesting that Texas Capital Bank return the {$880.00} in legitimate unrelated funds, confirm that the account closure or charge-off will not be reported in a way that harms my ability to maintain basic banking access, review and preserve the XX/XX/XXXX telephone recording, and provide a written explanation of its final position.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-12T04:36:08.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77096","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22103761","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.","date_received":"2026-05-12T03:50:29.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Before initiating any wire transfer, I contacted the bank by telephone on XX/XX/year>, to <em>confirm</em> <em>whether</em> the funds were available and <em>whether</em> there were any restrictions on using the funds. I was told that the funds were available and that there were no restrictions. \n\nBased on that confirmation, I proceeded in good faith and initiated a {$90000.00} wire transfer on XX/XX/year>."]},"sort":[14.400983,"22103761"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21443784","_score":14.177286,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I filed an Official Police Report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department concerning this same issue on XX/XX/XXXX with Detective XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nFormal Rebuttal to Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX Response To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I submit this response to formally dispute and rebut Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX letter. I remain wholly dissatisfied with Cash Apps response, which fails to meet the requirements of federal consumer financial law and does not meaningfully address the unauthorized electronic fund transfers that resulted in a loss of {$8500.00} from my account on XX/XX/XXXX. Cash Apps response is conclusory, boilerplate in nature, and devoid of the factual findings, evidentiary support, or legal analysis required under applicable law. It does not demonstrate compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., or Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, nor does it establish that Cash App conducted a reasonable, good-faith investigation into my claim of unauthorized transfers. I. Nature of the Unauthorized Transactions On XX/XX/XXXX, an unknown and unauthorized third party gained access to my Cash App account and initiated two peer-to-peer withdrawals totaling {$8500.00}, with a third attempted transaction failing due to insufficient funds. These transactions were not authorized by me, were not initiated by me, and provided no benefit to me. I did not share my credentials, did not approve any such transfers, and did not engage in any conduct that would constitute authorization under Regulation E. Upon discovering the activity, I acted promptly and responsibly by notifying Cash App, filing a dispute, and later submitting an appeal when Cash App denied my claim. II. Cash Apps Response Fails to Satisfy Regulation E Cash Apps letter does not satisfy the requirements imposed by Regulation XXXX on financial institutions handling claims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers. Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, a financial institution must : XXXX a reasonable investigation ; Determine whether an error occurred ; Provide the consumer with the results of the investigation ; and Correct the error promptly if found. Cash Apps response does none of the above in any meaningful way. Instead, it merely : Restates that prior communications occurred ; Confirms the dollar amounts of the transactions ; and Asserts denial without explanation. The response contains no description of the investigative steps taken, no findings, and no evidence supporting the conclusion that the transactions were authorized. XXXX. Absence of XXXX XXXX XXXX Cash App has failed to provide any proof that the transactions were authorized by me. Specifically, Cash App has not produced : Device identification records IP address logs Login timestamps correlated to my known activity Authentication or multi-factor verification records Evidence that security protocols functioned as intended Any consumer-initiated authorization record Under Regulation XXXX, the burden of proof rests with the financial institution to show that a transaction was authorized or that the consumers liability applies. Cash Apps response does not meet this burden. Conclusory statements that a claim was addressed or reviewed are not evidence and do not constitute a legally sufficient investigation. IV. Improper Shifting of Liability to the XXXX XXXX XXXX handling of this matter appears to improperly shift liability to the consumer without establishing any basis under the XXXX. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers is limited and conditioned on specific findings. Cash App has not alleged, much less proven, that : I authorized the transfers ; I engaged in fraud ; I failed to timely report the unauthorized activity ; or Any exception to consumer protections applies. Absent such findings, denial of reimbursement is inconsistent with federal law. V. Failure to Demonstrate Reasonable Security Controls Cash Apps response does not address how an unauthorized party was able to access my account or whether Cash Apps security systems failed. This raises broader concerns under : The XXXX ; CFPB supervisory expectations ; and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) standards. If Cash Apps systems permitted unauthorized access without effective detection or prevention, and then denied reimbursement without substantiated findings, such conduct XXXX constitute an unfair practice, as it causes substantial consumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. VI. XXXX XXXX and Supervisory Concerns Cash Apps letter appears to be a standardized boilerplate response, lacking any individualized analysis of my specific account activity. This raises concerns about whether Cash App : Systematically denies unauthorized transaction claims without adequate investigation ; Fails to provide required documentation to consumers ; and Relies on automated or cursory review processes inconsistent with XXXX XXXX Such practices are of supervisory and enforcement interest to the CFPB XXXX XXXX. Requested Regulatory Relief and Resolution Given the deficiencies in Cash Apps response, I respectfully request that : The CFPB require Cash App to demonstrate compliance with Regulation XXXX by producing evidence of authorization or a documented investigation ; Cash App be directed to reimburse the {$8500.00} withdrawn without my authorization absent such evidence ; and The CFPB consider whether Cash Apps handling of this matter reflects broader compliance or UDAAP concerns warranting supervisory or enforcement review. XXXX. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights and remedies available under federal and state law. Nothing in this response should be construed as a waiver of any legal claims or defenses. XXXX. Conclusion Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX response fails to meet the standards required by federal consumer financial law. It does not establish authorization, does not document a reasonable investigation, and does not justify denial of reimbursement. I respectfully request continued CFPB involvement and review, as this matter implicates not only my individual loss but also Cash Apps compliance with core consumer protection obligations. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-21T16:16:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"33901","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21443784","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-04-21T15:41:07.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This raises concerns about <em>whether</em> Cash App : Systematically <em>denies</em> unauthorized transaction claims without adequate investigation ; Fails to provide required documentation to consumers ; and Relies on automated or cursory review processes inconsistent with XXXX XXXX Such practices are of supervisory and enforcement interest to the CFPB XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[14.177286,"21443784"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13057345","_score":13.8126545,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is a formal rebuttal to ChexSystems response to my original complaint. Their reply is non-responsive to the central issue : the presence of harmful or inaccurate information in my file that has directly prevented me from opening bank accounts or cashing checks. \n\nChexSystems claims that they do not approve or deny accounts, but this statement evades accountability. Financial institutions rely on the information ChexSystems reports to make risk-based decisions. Therefore, ChexSystems reporting has a material effect on consumer access to financial services. \n\nAs a consumer, I have the right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to : 1.Dispute any information that is inaccurate, outdated, or unverifiable ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) 2.Request a full consumer disclosure including the sources and recipients of my consumer data ( 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) 3.Seek deletion of any data that can not be verified within 30 days ChexSystems response failed to : Acknowledge whether any negative or derogatory information exists in my file Confirm the source of such information or furnish evidence of its accuracy Demonstrate that any reinvestigation has been or will be conducted Provide a consumer disclosure or assist in clearing my record I have submitted a separate written dispute directly to ChexSystems as they instructed, but I request that this CFPB complaint remain open and under review until : My dispute is resolved My file is corrected and/or cleared I receive a formal response with supporting documentation Failure to investigate and resolve these concerns in compliance with federal law could warrant further legal and regulatory action. \n\nThank you for your continued assistance. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-18T22:25:15.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90805","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13057345","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","date_received":"2025-04-18T22:18:51.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["with federal <em>law</em> could warrant further legal and regulatory action."]},"sort":[13.8126545,"13057345"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14938220","_score":13.761915,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I submitted two applications to SoFi Bank : ( 1 ) a {$13000.00} personal loan and ( 2 ) a SoFi Unlimited 2 % Credit Card. On XX/XX/year>, SoFi issued adverse action notices denying both applications. The stated reasons were limited to vague, boilerplate phrases such as lack of recent bank/national revolving information, serious delinquency, and too few accounts currently paid as agreed, without identifying any specific accounts, dates, or credit items. \n\nThese notices fail to meet the specificity requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and Regulation B ( 12 CFR 1002.9 ), as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681m ), both of which require creditors to provide actual, specific reasons sufficient for the applicant to understand and correct any alleged deficiencies. The use of non-specific, template language constitutes a violation under both statutes. \n\nDuring the application process, I purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX ( XXXX XXXX # XXXX ). USPS confirms that this instrument was cashed, establishing a record of funds connected to my applications. SoFi has failed to acknowledge, apply, or refund these funds, raising issues of improper handling of consumer payments and potential violations of federal banking law and mail fraud statutes. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I sent a secure email requesting : ( XXXX ) copies of my completed applications, ( XXXX ) the credit report ( XXXX ) used for the adverse action, and ( XXXX ) a full accounting of the USPS money order. SoFi categorically refused to provide the applications or credit report, failed to produce any accounting of the money order, and simply referred me back to the same defective adverse action letters. \n\nThis conduct is not only non-compliant with ECOA and FCRA, it constitutes an unfair and abusive practice under the Dodd-Frank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) by ( a ) denying credit based on undisclosed or vague reasons, ( b ) withholding consumer information necessary to dispute adverse actions, and ( c ) failing to properly account for consumer funds tied to a credit application. \n\nI am requesting immediate CFPB intervention and investigation to : Compel SoFi Bank to produce specific, detailed adverse action reasons in compliance with ECOA/FCRA.\n\nRequire SoFi to provide a full accounting of XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX and either apply or refund the funds. \n\nDetermine whether SoFis adverse action practices and handling of consumer payments constitute systemic violations and UDAAP under federal law. \n\nEnforce corrective measures to ensure compliance and restitution.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-30T05:05:16.000Z","issue":"Getting the loan","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"63130","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14938220","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-30T03:08:01.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting immediate CFPB intervention and investigation to : Compel SoFi Bank to produce specific, detailed adverse action reasons in <em>compliance</em> with ECOA/FCRA.\n\nRequire SoFi to provide a full accounting of XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX and either apply or refund the funds. \n\nDetermine <em>whether</em> SoFis adverse action practices and handling of consumer payments constitute systemic violations and UDAAP under federal <em>law</em>. \n\nEnforce corrective measures to ensure <em>compliance</em> and restitution."]},"sort":[13.761915,"14938220"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14058548","_score":13.566699,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against Experian for continuing to report a charge-off account from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account No. XXXX ) that was never legally validated and violates multiple federal laws. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the furnisher XXXX XXXX responded to my prior dispute by stating they would not provide any new documentation, as they had already responded on XX/XX/XXXX. However, neither of those responses included proper validation under FCRA and FDCPA. There was no signed contract, no itemized statement, and no proof of ownership. \nMost importantly, the furnisher admitted the account was charged off to {$0.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX, yet no IRS Form 1099-C was issued or denied, which is a violation of IRS Code 26 U.S.C. 6050P. If a charge-off exceeds {$600.00}, it must be reported to the IRS.\n\nI explained this clearly to Experian in my previous dispute, and attached documentation showing that the account lacked legal validation and tax compliance. Still, Experian closed the dispute without addressing any of these legal deficiencies and continued to report the balance as collectible.\n\nThis is a clear violation of : FCRA 1681i ( a ) : failure to reinvestigate disputed information reasonably and in good faith.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) : failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy of reported data.\n\nFCRA 1681n and 1681o : willful and negligent noncompliance with federal law.\n\nExperian is also reporting an inaccurate address ( \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ) that was never used by the furnisher for correspondence, while XXXX XXXX used my correct address in all letters. \nThis ongoing reporting of unverifiable, unvalidated, and tax-noncompliant data is deceptive and materially harmful to me as a consumer. I respectfully request the CFPB to instruct Experian to : Delete this account from my credit report ; Remove the false address ; Confirm whether a 1099-C was ever issued, and if not, cease all reporting of the charge-off.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-13T22:00:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60156","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14058548","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-13T21:59:38.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I respectfully request the CFPB to instruct Experian to : Delete this account from my credit report ; Remove the false address ; <em>Confirm</em> <em>whether</em> a 1099-C was ever issued, and if not, cease all reporting of the charge-off."]},"sort":[13.566699,"14058548"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14535223","_score":13.29944,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX for improperly denying my request for benefits under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). I am currently serving on XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX XXXX and have provided multiple official documents that confirm my XXXX XXXX status. Despite this, Chrysler Capital has refused to acknowledge my eligibility, citing the need for XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) orders or other travel documentation. This requirement is completely unfounded and demonstrates a misunderstanding of military structure and SCRA compliance. As an XXXX XXXX servicemember on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) orders, I am not required to provide XXXX  orders to prove my status. XXXX  orders are issued to servicemembers who are permanently relocating under official military assignment and are clear, sufficient proof of XXXX XXXX service. XXXX XXXX should not be requesting XXXX  documentation in this case, as it is entirely irrelevant and unnecessary. \n\nIn support of my request, I submitted my XXXX  orders. These orders are issued exclusively to servicemembers on XXXX XXXX and direct a permanent move from one duty location to another. They are not given to reservists or temporary personnel and serve as direct proof that I am currently XXXX  full-time. My XXXX  orders clearly list the date of issue, the gaining XXXX  and XXXX  station, and the official report date to my new assignment overseas. This alone confirms my XXXX XXXX status. \n\nI also submitted my Leave and Earnings Statement ( LES ), which further verifies my current service. The LES includes critical details such as my pay grade, time in service, entitlements, and most importantly, my current XXXX  status. It is a monthly official financial document issued only to those currently serving in XXXX. There should be no question about its validity or its relevance in establishing my eligibility under the XXXX. \n\nAdditionally, I submitted my XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), which is an internal XXXX document generated by the XXXX  human resources systems. The XXXX outlines my complete XXXX  careerassignments, XXXX, promotions, training, XXXX, and my projected separation date. This document is dynamic and reflects up-to-date status information for personnel management. It would not exist in this form if I were not on XXXX XXXX. In fact, it is used by XXXX leadership for assignment planning and career development and is only accessible and applicable to currently serving soldiers. \n\nDespite submitting all three of these valid documentsXXXX  orders, LES, and XXXX XXXX denied my SCRA request, stating that I must submit XXXX orders or other temporary travel documents. This is both inaccurate and unjustified. XXXX  orders are issued for short-term assignments and have no bearing on whether someone is on XXXX XXXX. A XXXX can be continuously active without ever having XXXX  orders. It is unreasonable and incorrect to deny SCRA protections based on the absence of documents that have no legal requirement or relevance under the law. \n\nAccording to federal law, specifically the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( 50 U.S.C. 39014043 ), I am entitled to certain protections once I enter XXXX XXXX. The law does not state that XXXX orders are required. It only requires proof of active XXXX  service, which I have more than sufficiently provided. \n\nXXXX XXXX continued refusal to accept standard XXXX  documentation, their demand for irrelevant forms like XXXX  orders, and their unwillingness to follow federal law has delayed and obstructed the legal protections I am entitled to as a servicemember. This has caused unnecessary stress and demonstrates a clear disregard for the rights of XXXX  personnel. \n\nI am requesting that this matter be formally investigated and that XXXX XXXX be held accountable for failing to comply with the SCRA. I have done everything required of me and provided every piece of documentation that confirms my XXXX XXXX status. I ask that this be corrected immediately and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure no other servicemember faces the same issue moving forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-08T22:28:55.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"91325","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14535223","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-08T22:22:31.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is unreasonable and incorrect to <em>deny</em> SCRA protections based on the absence of documents that have no legal requirement or relevance under the <em>law</em>. \n\nAccording to federal <em>law</em>, specifically the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( 50 U.S.C. 39014043 ), I am entitled to certain protections once I enter XXXX XXXX. The <em>law</em> does not state that XXXX orders are required. It only requires proof of active XXXX  service, which I have more than sufficiently provided."]},"sort":[13.29944,"14535223"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14158894","_score":13.059687,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"* * Subject : * * Formal Complaint Against BMG for Fraudulent Use of Personal Information and Unjust Loan Denial * * To Whom It May Concern, * * I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against * * BMG Money ( Banco BMG S.A. ) * * for what I believe to be a fraudulent and unethical handling of my personal information, as well as an unjust denial of a loan application despite my full compliance with all documentation requirements. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I submitted an application for a loan with BMG and was asked to provide several supporting documents, including bank statements, pay stubs, and other various personal information. I provided all the requested documents in a timely and complete manner. Despite fulfilling every requirement, my application was denied without sufficient explanation.\n\nMore concerning, I have reason to believe that BMG has retained or used my personal dataincluding sensitive financial and identification informationwithout lawful consent or proper disclosure regarding how this data would be used. I did not authorize BMG to collect, store, or share my information beyond the scope of evaluating my loan application. This raises serious concerns of data misuse or potential identity fraud.\n\nI request that BMG immediately : 1. Provide a full and clear explanation for the loan denial, including the specific criteria or information used in reaching that decision.\n\n2. Disclose whether my personal information has been shared, stored, or used for any purpose beyond the original scope of the loan application.\n\n3. Confirm that all of my personal information has been securely deleted or anonymized, in compliance with data protection laws.\n\n4. Offer a written apology and any reparations, if appropriate, for the misuse of my data or for any distress caused.\n\nIf this matter is not resolved to my satisfaction within 14 business days of receiving this notice, I will have no choice but to escalate this complaint to appropriate regulatory authorities, including but not limited to the * * Consumer Protection Agency * *, the * * Data Protection Authority * *, and if necessary, seek legal remedies.\n\nPlease consider this my formal request for resolution. I expect a written response and corrective action within the stated timeframe. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-18T15:04:47.000Z","issue":"Can't contact lender or servicer","sub_product":"Payday loan","zip_code":"20708","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14158894","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EGL US, LLC","date_received":"2025-06-18T14:51:19.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Disclose <em>whether</em> my personal information has been shared, stored, or used for any purpose beyond the original scope of the loan application.\n\n3. <em>Confirm</em> that all of my personal information has been securely deleted or anonymized, in <em>compliance</em> with data protection <em>laws</em>.\n\n4. Offer a written apology and any reparations, if appropriate, for the misuse of my data or for any distress caused."]},"sort":[13.059687,"14158894"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12665501","_score":12.867852,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Against XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) for Financial Misconduct and Misclassification Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this formal complaint to request your office 's investigation into XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) for engaging in deceptive financial practices, student misclassification, and systemic failure to correct financial aid-related recordsactions that have caused me severe financial harm and appear to violate multiple federal statutes. \n\nSummary of the Issue : I was enrolled at XXXX from XXXX to XXXX as a post-baccalaureate student. \n\nXXXX misclassified me as a graduate student, resulting in the disbursement of XXXX-level federal student loans, despite charging me XXXX tuition. \n\nThis misclassification has caused me to pay higher interest rates for over 20 years, and I have been denied access to graduate education as a result. \n\nI notified XXXX of this error more than a month ago, yet they have taken no corrective action or provided documentation to confirm any updates. \n\nViolations of CFPB Jurisdiction Include : Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) 12 U.S.C. 5531 XXXX 's failure to disclose accurate loan classification and their inaction constitute deceptive and unfair practices. \n\nHigher Education Act ( HEA ) 20 U.S.C. 1094 ( a ) ( 3 ) Improper reporting to the National Student Loan Data System ( NSLDS ), impacting federal student aid. \n\nFailure to Provide Timely Corrections Under FERPA XXXX has ignored formal requests to amend my educational records under federal law. \n\nRequest for CFPB Action : Open an investigation into XXXX  handling of student classifications and financial aid reporting. \n\nWork with the Department of Education and relevant state agencies to ensure institutional compliance. \n\nProvide guidance on how I may seek compensation, student loan recalculation, or other financial remedies.\n\nI believe this issue may impact many more students, and as such, I am urging your office to assess whether XXXX has engaged in systemic financial misconduct that has harmed consumers. \n\nPlease confirm receipt of this complaint. I am available to provide documentation, including copies of my student records, loan statements, and correspondence with XXXX. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX ID : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-25T13:11:15.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"394XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12665501","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-25T12:50:54.000Z","state":"MS","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This misclassification has caused me to pay higher interest rates for over 20 years, and I have been <em>denied</em> access to graduate education as a result. \n\nI notified XXXX of this error more than a month ago, yet they have taken no corrective action or provided documentation to <em>confirm</em> any updates."]},"sort":[12.867852,"12665501"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18030177","_score":12.8042555,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is to attach new information obtained from XXXX. This is pertaining to my first two filed complaints and disputes with money network. Does not include all other proof of documents for the incident at hand. Please refer to original complaint for that information. \n\nBrief : This is the 3rd and final follow up regarding an incident with my Phone Service ( XXXX by XXXX ) and XXXX  XXXX. The incident occurred on XX/XX/year>. As I was charged for items I did not purchase from inside the store. Totaling the amount of {$720.00}. As I was lead to believe this was for a XXXX XXXX XXXX  phone, taxes, with other added charges that I was unaware of at the time of purchase. \n\nRecently I obtained new information regarding this dispute from XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ) or otherwise known as XXXX. This letter was sent to me on the date of XX/XX/year>. And only recently received today on XX/XX/year>. \n\n* * * * * Note : I am only attaching the XXXX letter to this complaint. Along with direct copy to XXXX XXXX itself. * * * * * * * * what is not included is what has been sent to them already in the past two complaints filed * * * Summary of my complaint : I am submitting this complaint regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mishandling of my electronic fund transfer dispute, including improper notice, failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, wrongful reversal of provisional credit, and denial of appeals in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ). \n\nThis complaint is supported by correspondence from the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), which is attached and referenced below. The XXXX letter is critically important, not because it resolved the dispute, but because it confirms the dispute was never substantively adjudicated and that key issues remained unresolved. \n\n\n\nTimeline of Events XX/XX/year> : Wrongful/unauthorized transaction occurred at a XXXX by XXXX retail store . \nXX/XX/year> : I submitted a formal dispute to XXXX XXXX \nXX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX issued a provisional credit of {$720.00}. \nXX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX  claims it sent a letter requesting additional information. \nXX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX reversed the provisional credit only XXXX days later, including a weekend, without adequate time or proper notice to respond. \nSubsequent Appeals : Denied based on claims that documents were cut off or unreadable, without contacting me to cure or resubmit. \n\n\n\nImportance of the XXXX Letter The XXXX letter is significant for what it confirms and what it does NOT do : What the XXXX Letter Confirms XXXX by XXXX could not verify or review in-store retail transactions. \nThe dispute was not resolved at the merchant level. \nI was advised to pursue resolution through my banking institution. \n\nWhat the XXXX Did NOT Do ( Critical Clarification ) XXXX did not rule on whether fraud occurred. \nXXXX did not determine whether any retail employee acted unlawfully. \nXXXX did not verify in-store transaction details or consumer authorization. \nXXXX did not evaluate XXXX XXXX obligations under federal law, including Regulation E. \n\nAs a result, there has never been a determination that the disputed transaction was authorized or valid, and the XXXX letter can not be relied upon by XXXX XXXX  to justify denial of my claim. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX  Regulation E Violations Despite the unresolved nature of the underlying transaction, XXXX XXXX : 1. Reversed provisional credit without providing reasonable notice or response time, effectively allowing fewer than five days, including a weekend.\n\n2. Failed to conduct a good-faith investigation, instead relying on unsupported merchant assertions.\n\n3. Denied appeals without providing an opportunity to cure alleged document issues, despite having my phone number and email.\n\n4. Failed to comply with Regulation E requirements governing investigations, notice, and consumer rights. \n\nThese actions violate 12 CFR 1005.11, which requires financial institutions to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide proper notice before denying a claim or reversing provisional credit. \n\n\n\nRequested CFPB Action I respectfully request that the CFPB : 1. Investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute-handling practices in this matter. \n2. Require reinstatement of the full disputed amount of {$720.00}.\n\n3. Require Money Network to provide a written explanation demonstrating compliance with Regulation E. \n4. Take any additional corrective or enforcement action deemed appropriate. \n\n\n\nConclusion The XXXX letter does not weaken my claim it confirms that the dispute was never resolved on the merits and that XXXX XXXX  remains fully responsible for complying with federal consumer protection law. XXXX XXXX actions caused financial hardship and reflect systemic failures in dispute resolution. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-14T23:46:57.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"950XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18030177","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","date_received":"2025-12-14T23:20:29.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["What the XXXX Did NOT Do ( Critical Clarification ) XXXX did not rule on <em>whether</em> fraud occurred. \nXXXX did not determine <em>whether</em> any retail employee acted unlawfully. \nXXXX did not verify in-store transaction details or consumer authorization. \nXXXX did not evaluate XXXX XXXX obligations under federal <em>law</em>, including Regulation E."]},"sort":[12.8042555,"18030177"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11948820","_score":12.726731,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"United Auto Credit denied affiliation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not true non affiliation -. not associated with a particular group, organization, etc. \n\naffiliation-the state or relation of being closely associated or affiliated with a particular person, group, party, company, etc XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX VA XXXX XX/XX/year> Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, XXXX XXXX Subject : Complaint Against United Auto Credit for False Statements and Misrepresentation in Debt Collection Dear CFPB, I am filing a formal complaint against United Auto Credit Corporation for providing false and misleading statements to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding their affiliation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, while allowing this firm to represent them in the collection of a debt allegedly owed by me.United Auto Credit has asserted that they are not affiliated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  However, despite this claim, they have permitted this firm to act on their behalf in attempting to collect a debt. This contradiction raises serious concerns regarding their compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and their responsibility to provide accurate information to both consumers and regulatory agencies.I believe United Auto Credits actions violate the following provisions of the FDCPA:1. 15 U.S.C. 1692e False or Misleading RepresentationsUnited Auto Credit has made false statements to the CFPB and to me by claiming non-affiliation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, while still allowing them to engage in collection activities on their behalf.This misrepresentation has caused confusion and uncertainty regarding who is actually authorized to collect on the alleged debt.2. 15 U.S.C. 1692j Furnishing Deceptive Forms By enabling a third-party entity to act as a debt collector without proper disclosure of their relationship, United Auto Credit may be in violation of laws prohibiting deceptive practices in debt collection.I request that the CFPB investigate this matter to determine whether United Auto Credit has engaged in deceptive or unlawful collection practices and take appropriate enforcement actions if necessary.Additionally, I ask that the CFPB : Require United Auto Credit to clarify their relationship with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and provide documentation confirming or denying any official authorization for debt collection.Ensure that United Auto Credit corrects any false statements made to the CFPB and does not engage in misleading or deceptive representations regarding their affiliations in the future.Hold United Auto Credit accountable if they have violated the FDCPA or any other consumer protection laws.Please let me know if you require any additional information or documentation to support this complaint. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-05T05:10:24.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"23224","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11948820","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"United PanAm Financial Corp.","date_received":"2025-02-05T04:20:49.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["United Auto Credit <em>denied</em> affiliation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not true non affiliation -. not associated with a particular group, organization, etc."],"sub_issue":["Impersonated attorney, <em>law</em> enforcement, or government official"]},"sort":[12.726731,"11948820"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19950108","_score":12.440482,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding ongoing debt collection activity related to alleged homeowners association ( HOA ) assessments on my property by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and its retained debt collection counsel, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nA XXXX  law firm has been engaged in collection activity concerning alleged unpaid assessments. I have received collection communications and foreclosure-related notices. \n\nWhile this collection activity is ongoing, I attempted to inspect and obtain the governing documents that establish the Associations authority to impose and enforce the alleged debt, specifically the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ( CCRs ) applicable to my property. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I physically appeared at the XXXX office to request inspection of these official records. \n\nInstead of providing access to the governing documents, I was handed a document titled XXXX XXXX XXXX Application for Commercial Construction, which is unrelated to my request. \n\nI did not request architectural approval, demolition review, or construction authorization. I requested access to official records necessary to verify the basis, amount, and enforceability of the alleged debt. \n\nThis conduct effectively obstructs my ability to meaningfully review and dispute the debt being collected. \n\nGiven that foreclosure and XXXX enforcement are involved, access to the Declaration and governing documents is material to : Determining whether the assessments were properly authorized Verifying compliance with notice and enforcement requirements Confirming XXXX authority and procedural validity Evaluating the accuracy of the amount claimed Continuing collection activity while obstructing access to foundational governing documents raises concerns under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including : 15 U.S.C. 1692e false or misleading representations 15 U.S.C. 1692f unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt 15 U.S.C. 1692g validation of debts If a consumer is denied access to the documents that create and define the alleged obligation, the consumer is materially impaired in exercising their dispute and validation rights. \n\nI am requesting : Investigation into whether the debt collector is engaging in unfair or deceptive practices by continuing collection activity while foundational documentation is withheld Confirmation that proper debt validation procedures have been followed Immediate provision of documentation supporting the debt, including governing authority and governing declarations applicable to my property I am not disputing that associations may assess dues. I am asserting that meaningful access to governing documents is necessary to verify the legitimacy, calculation, and enforceability of the alleged debt before foreclosure proceeds. \n\nThis matter involves active collection pressure and potential loss of property. \n\nI respectfully request regulatory review and appropriate corrective action.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-19T12:17:33.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"34759","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19950108","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Larsen & Associates, P.L.","date_received":"2026-03-04T01:10:42.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Given that foreclosure and XXXX enforcement are involved, access to the Declaration and governing documents is material to : Determining <em>whether</em> the assessments were properly authorized Verifying <em>compliance</em> with notice and enforcement requirements <em>Confirming</em> XXXX authority and procedural validity Evaluating the accuracy of the amount claimed Continuing collection activity while obstructing access to foundational governing documents raises concerns under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including"]},"sort":[12.440482,"19950108"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18387665","_score":12.3075695,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing regarding the adverse action taken on my Apple Card application dated XX/XX/year>. I was notified that the application was denied based in whole or in part on information obtained from a XXXX  consumer report. The adverse action notice cited generalized reasons including serious delinquency and public record or collection filed, high proportion of balances to credit limits, too many accounts with balances, and a reported credit score of XXXX. \n\nThis correspondence is not an admission of any debt, delinquency, collection account, or public record. It is not a dispute submitted under 15 U.S.C. 1681i. It is a formal request for clarification and verification made in good faith to ensure compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. \n\nThe adverse action notice provides only conclusory statements and does not identify any specific creditor, account, collection, or public record that allegedly supports the stated reasons. Without identification of the actual information relied upon, neither I nor any neutral decision-maker can independently evaluate the accuracy, relevance, or completeness of the basis for the denial. \n\nAccordingly, this notice requires Goldman Sachs Bank USA to take one of two factual positions, each of which must be stated clearly and in writing. \n\nEither the adverse action was based on XXXX or more specific, identifiable, and verifiable tradelines, collections, or public records attributable to me, in which case you must identify each such item relied upon, including the furnisher name and sufficient detail to allow independent review and, if appropriate, dispute. \n\nOr, alternatively, the adverse action was not based on any specific, identifiable derogatory account or public record attributable to me, but instead relied on generalized scoring factors, automated underwriting processes, or aggregated data inputs without item-level reliance, in which case no specific delinquency, collection, or public record exists to substantiate the stated reasons cited in the adverse action notice. \n\nThis request does not seek disclosure of underwriting criteria, proprietary models, scoring formulas, or trade secrets. It seeks only clarification of whether any specific derogatory account or public record attributable to me was relied upon in reaching the adverse decision. \n\nIf the former applies, failure to identify the specific items relied upon prevents meaningful disclosure and interferes with the exercise of consumer rights to review and challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information used in the adverse action, as contemplated by 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( a ).\n\nIf the latter applies, then the stated reasons asserting serious delinquency and public record or collection filed are materially misleading, as they imply the existence of verified derogatory information when no such item has been identified, raising concerns regarding whether the consumer report information relied upon satisfied the Fair Credit Reporting Acts accuracy and completeness requirements.\n\nFor purposes of meaningful disclosure and record accuracy, these are the only two factual possibilities that would explain the stated reasons for denial. Any response that relies solely on generalized score explanations, automated risk descriptors, or defers responsibility entirely to the consumer reporting agency without addressing this clarification will be deemed non-responsive. \n\nTo the extent the denial relied on adverse score factors, please confirm whether those factors were derived from specific tradelines, collections, or public records attributed to me, or whether they reflected generalized risk metrics without identification of any individual derogatory account. \n\nI further request that all future communications regarding this matter be sent in writing only to my home address listed above. I do not consent to telephone, electronic, or third-party communications regarding this issue. \n\nThis notice is sent for record-preservation and compliance purposes only. It does not waive any rights, does not acknowledge liability, and does not toll or revive any statute of limitations. I expressly reserve all rights and remedies available under federal and Washington State law.\n\nI request that any response be provided within thirty ( 30 ) days of receipt of this notice so that the record may be kept current and accurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-31T03:00:39.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"99208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18387665","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-12-31T02:57:39.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To the extent the denial relied on adverse score factors, please <em>confirm</em> <em>whether</em> those factors were derived from specific tradelines, collections, or public records attributed to me, or <em>whether</em> they reflected generalized risk metrics without identification of any individual derogatory account. \n\nI further request that all future communications regarding this matter be sent in writing only to my home address listed above."]},"sort":[12.3075695,"18387665"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18387784","_score":12.306023,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"THIS IS NEW/ NOT A DUPLICATE. This submission is an additional complaint based on newly discovered evidence obtained in XXXX and is not a duplicate of my prior CFPB complaints. \nThis complaint is based on new evidence obtained in XXXX that was not available during my prior CFPB submissions : the XXXX XXXX notary stated in writing that the notary journal entry for the XX/XX/XXXX notarization was destroyed/shredded in XXXX and can not be produced. Although the foreclosure complaint was filed in XXXX, the plaintiffs servicing agent, XXXX XXXX, verified the filing while simultaneously stating that for documents signed or notarized by a party other than XXXX, the verifier is unable to confirm or deny whether those documents were properly reviewed/notarized by any third party. \nThis creates an integrity concern because a third-party notarized Assignment was nonetheless attached and relied upon as Exhibit C, yet the primary contemporaneous verification record ( the journal entry ) is now unavailable. \nAt minimum, this sequence raises questions about what due diligence was performed before relying on a third-party notarized instrument in a verified filing affecting real property rights. I am not asking CFPB to investigate a criminal matter ; I am requesting a specific, accountable response identifying the responsible party and confirming record preservation and the existence ( or nonexistence ) of any supporting records beyond the face of the document. \n1 ) Background ( court-filed document and verification ) In the XXXX foreclosure case XXXX, the complaint states that a true and correct copy of the Assignment is attached as Exhibit C. \nThe Verification of Complaint for Foreclosure was executed by the Plaintiffs servicing agent XXXX XXXX XXXX, \" XXXX XXXX ''. \nThe verifier states she reviewed the Verified Complaint including the attached exhibits and confirmed factual accuracy, but also states : With respect to documents signed or notarized by a party other than XXXX, I am unable to confirm or deny that the underlying documents filed with the court have been properly reviewed or notarized by any third party. \n\n2 ) New evidence discovered in XXXX ( notary journal unavailable ) Exhibit C contains a XXXX  notarial acknowledgment stating XXXX XXXX, notarized by XXXX XXXX, with commission information and the notarial certificate ( commission expires XX/XX/XXXX ). \nIn XXXX, I requested a photocopy of the notary journal entry for the XX/XX/XXXX notarization. The notary responded in writing that the journal containing that entry was accidentally destroyed in XXXX and she is unable to provide the requested journal entry. \nBecause the primary contemporaneous verification record ( the journal entry ) is now destroyed ( Due to Notary 's admission but no report of destruction to Secretary Of State ) /unavailable, the personal-appearance/journal verification for this third-party notarization can not be independently verified, and even the verifier in the foreclosure filing expressly disclaims confirming third-party notarization compliance. \n\n3 ) Law-enforcement report ( for record preservation ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a written report to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to preserve a record of this documentation-integrity concern. I am not asking CFPB to investigate a criminal matter ; I am documenting this issue because it affects the integrity and verifiability of a key instrument used in servicing/foreclosure communications and verified filings. \n\n4 ) Prior CFPB pattern : responses that close the case without resolving accountability In prior CFPB cases, XXXX Mellon has responded but the matter is then closed with explanation ( feedback requested ), without resolving who has authority and responsibility. \nXXXX Mellons responses repeatedly state it does not service or have the authority to service the Loan, and identifies XXXX  XXXX XXXX as Master Servicer, directing me elsewhere. \nRequested Response : please answer each item specifically Record Preservation ( Exhibit C ) : Given that the notary journal entry has not been reported but the Notary admits that the journal has been destroyed/unavailable, please confirm in writing that all records relating to Exhibit C on Complaint - including images, metadata, transmittal history, custodial logs, and any communications about preparation/notarization - are preserved. \nIdentify the Responsible Party / Authority : If XXXX Mellon maintains it does not service or have authority to service this loan, identify ( name, address, role ) the specific servicer/authorized agent or department with authority to respond to documentation-integrity issues and to certify record preservation for this loan. \nSpecific Evidence Inquiry ( beyond the face of Exhibit C ) : State whether any records exist that support the XX/XX/XXXX notarization other than the face of the document ( e.g., collateral file custody logs, boarding/collateral intake logs, document transmittal history ). If yes, describe/produce them. \nNo generic restatement : Please provide a complete, specific response to the numbered items above rather than a generic restatement of prior CFPB responses. \n\nAttachments A1 : Complaint excerpt stating Assignment attached as Exhibit C A2 : Exhibit C notary block page ( XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX / commission info ) A3 : XXXX XXXX written response : journal destroyed in XXXX ; can not provide entry of the journal. \nA4 : Verification paragraph disclaiming ability to confirm third-party notarization","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-31T03:09:14.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"968XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18387784","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2025-12-31T00:43:26.000Z","state":"HI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Loan sold or transferred to another company"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Although the foreclosure complaint was filed in XXXX, the plaintiffs servicing agent, XXXX XXXX, verified the filing while simultaneously stating that for documents signed or notarized by a party other than XXXX, the verifier is unable to <em>confirm</em> or <em>deny</em> <em>whether</em> those documents were properly reviewed/notarized by any third party."]},"sort":[12.306023,"18387784"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":218,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":218}]}},"product":{"doc_count":218,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":82,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":80},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":42,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":26},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":4},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Private student loan debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Federal student loan debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":15},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":17,"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":17}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":7},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":11}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":5},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":3},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":8},{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":4},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":2},{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":218,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":35,"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":32},{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":34,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":12},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":11},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":10},{"key":"Old information reappears or never goes away","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":27,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":22},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":20,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":19},{"key":"Report provided to employer without your written authorization","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":6},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":5},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":5},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":8,"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":8}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":3},{"key":"Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Collected or attempted to collect exempt funds","doc_count":1},{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":3},{"key":"Don't agree with the fees charged","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":4},{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Changes in loan terms during or after closing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fees charged","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1},{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan estimate or other related disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":2},{"key":"Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit denial","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1},{"key":"Notification didn't disclose it was an attempt to collect a debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"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},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Contacted you instead of your attorney","doc_count":1},{"key":"Talked to a third-party about your debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Can't contact lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't close your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to open an account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem getting your report or credit score","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":218,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":214},{"key":"No","doc_count":4}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":218,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":162},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":50},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":4},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":218,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":218}]}},"company":{"doc_count":218,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":28},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":28},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":27},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":9},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":6},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":4},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":3},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":3},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":2},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":2},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"ACIMA CREDIT, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"ALLIANT CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bounce AI, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Brock & Scott, PLLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Checkr, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Systems International, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DHI Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"ECMC GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"EGL US, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EOS Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ERC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EdFinancial Services","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","doc_count":1},{"key":"HW Holding, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"IQOR US INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kikoff Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Larsen & Associates, P.L.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Law Office of Brett M. Borland, P.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Lennar Financial Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"MERCHANTS BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Medical-Commercial Audit Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Messerli & Kramer P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Metacorp LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PRANCER CAPITAL CORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Payward Ventures Inc. dba Kraken","doc_count":1},{"key":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rent Recovery Solutions","doc_count":1},{"key":"Robinson & Hoover","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rosebud Economic Development Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rowland Avenue Management, Inc. A/KA Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC d/b/a Genesis","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicer under contract with Federal Student Aid","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Stillman, P.C. d.b.a. Stillman Law Office","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sunbit, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"T.S. Holdings","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"United Military Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"United PanAm Financial Corp.","doc_count":1},{"key":"VW Credit","doc_count":1},{"key":"Village Capital & Investment LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":218,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":34},{"key":"CA","doc_count":22},{"key":"GA","doc_count":22},{"key":"FL","doc_count":20},{"key":"MO","doc_count":18},{"key":"MI","doc_count":12},{"key":"NV","doc_count":9},{"key":"CT","doc_count":8},{"key":"NC","doc_count":7},{"key":"NY","doc_count":6},{"key":"PA","doc_count":6},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":4},{"key":"ID","doc_count":4},{"key":"KY","doc_count":4},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"OH","doc_count":4},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"MN","doc_count":3},{"key":"MS","doc_count":3},{"key":"AR","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"NE","doc_count":2},{"key":"RI","doc_count":2},{"key":"SC","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"WA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AE","doc_count":1},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"HI","doc_count":1},{"key":"IA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SD","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":218,"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":84},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":7},{"key":"Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint","doc_count":2},{"key":"Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company","doc_count":1},{"key":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":218,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":15},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":7}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[12.300995,"18387665"],"3":[10.9164715,"13202894"],"4":[9.945642,"17156465"],"5":[8.416795,"15568232"],"6":[7.460265,"4788100"],"7":[5.929178,"13642769"],"8":[4.6517596,"2835077"]}}}