{"took":977,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":52,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21233188","_score":16.85869,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Current regarding their failure to properly investigate and resolve unauthorized electronic fund transfers totaling over {$6500.00} on my account ending in XXXX. \n\nThese transactions were the result of identity theft and account takeover. An unknown third party gained access to my mobile device and financial accounts, including unauthorized activation of call and text forwarding, which allowed them to intercept authentication codes and gain control of my accounts. \n\nThe unauthorized activity primarily involved XXXX transactions used in connection with XXXX  to purchase cryptocurrency. This activity occurred rapidly and repeatedly over a XXXX  period and is clearly inconsistent with normal consumer behavior. \n\nI reported this fraud and fully complied with Currents dispute and appeal process. At their request, I submitted substantial additional evidence, including : An FTC Identity Theft Report Screenshots documenting multiple unauthorized transactions Evidence of device compromise ( unauthorized call and text forwarding ) Documentation showing a clear pattern of fraudulent activity A work clock-in record proving I was physically at work during a {$1000.00} transaction on XX/XX/year> at approximately XXXX PM This evidence directly contradicts any conclusion that the transactions were authorized. \n\nDespite this, Current : Denied my dispute and appeal without properly addressing the evidence Failed to investigate the full scope of unauthorized transactions ( over {$6500.00} ) Improperly limited review to a single transaction instead of the full pattern of fraud Failed to provide any meaningful explanation or documentation supporting their determination that the transactions were authorized Failed to timely acknowledge or process my submitted evidence after specifically requesting it Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11 ), consumers are not liable for unauthorized electronic fund transfers initiated by a third party without actual authority, even if the fraudster used the consumers device or credentials due to account compromise. \n\nAdditionally, financial institutions are required to conduct a reasonable investigation and consider all relevant evidence submitted by the consumer. Current has failed to meet these obligations. \n\nI am requesting that Current be required to : - Reopen and conduct a full, good-faith reinvestigation of ALL unauthorized transactions - Reimburse the full amount of the fraudulent transfers totaling over {$6500.00} - Provide all documentation relied upon in determining that the transactions were authorized, including device, IP, and authentication logs - Correct their failure to properly process my appeal and submitted evidence - Ensure compliance with Regulation E requirements going forward I am submitting this complaint because Current has failed to properly investigate clear account takeover fraud and is incorrectly holding me liable for unauthorized transactions.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-14T18:30:55.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"91304","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21233188","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2026-04-14T18:23:33.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>submitting</em> this <em>complaint</em> <em>because</em> Current has failed to properly investigate clear account takeover fraud and is incorrectly holding me liable for unauthorized transactions."]},"sort":[16.85869,"21233188"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4168864","_score":15.42112,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"RE : XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I, XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted a complaint against FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO. Original complaint copied below : [ As of XX/XX/XXXX, I was appointed guardianship of my mother, XXXX XXXX, and the bank told me that they need me to go over there and get a lawyer to take the paperwork to the court. And that I need to go to XXXX XXXX with my mother and she has XXXX XXXX. I called, and they asked for the account number, and they transferred me to the local bank where they have the money. They told me ; you know we are not supposed to give you any information. I stated yes, I found that out in XXXX, and that was that my sister or I are not able to get information because she was living with a man ( now deceased ), and that he manipulated her to do that. Prior to that, my sister and I were beneficiaries on her account. She was not in her right mind due to XXXX when she did that. Because of me not being able to access her money, she is not eligible to get benefits with Medicaid or Medicare. She only qualifies for the SNAPS. All the other financial responsibilities fall on me for her meds, her diapers, I pay for her medical clinic visits, but I can not pay her medical bill for the hospital that is escalating, I am on a limited income. I already owe my daughter for fees to get the guardianship for my mom, and I can not even afford to repay her. What is the process of getting this account to New Jersey because First Bank is not cooperating? I had difficulty setting up an online account. I went to my bank here with the paperwork thinking that they could make that transaction happen, but they said that they can not do that. ] On XX/XX/XXXX, FIRST BANK PUERTO RICO responded, their response below : [ On XX/XX/XXXX, FirstBank ( the \" Bank '' ) received complaint number XXXX from Mrs. XXXX XXXX ( Mrs. XXXX and/or the Complainant ). The Complainant alleges that as of XX/XX/XXXX she had been appointed guardianship of her mother, XXXX XXXX. She also alleges that she has been trying to close his mother account with FirstBank and the Bank told her she should go to XXXX XXXX and personally take care of the paperwork to close the account. Complainant is requesting that the Bank closes the account and mail her a check since they are both living in the United States sin XX/XX/XXXX. Immediately following the receipt of this complaint, it was referred for investigation to the proper business unit. After reviewing the complaint and the account related to it, the Bank can not release information to Mrs. XXXX XXXX since it shows from our records that she is not the account holder, nor an authorized person in the account. The Bank has not been notified of any transactions done with the Complainant, nor receive any authorization from the account holder to release the information on the account. Although the Complainant includes a petition for her mothers guardianship submitted to the court, she does not include a valid court document where she is appointed her guardian. To protect the privacy and information of our clients, FirstBank does not release information to unauthorized persons. We invite the Complainant to contact the account holder directly to address this situation or provide the Bank documentation necessary that demonstrate she is authorized to obtain information about the account. FirstBank is fully committed with compliance of any regulation that affects our operations and furthermore, with the full satisfaction of our clientele. Should additional information or clarification be needed, do not hesitate to contact FirstBank. ] My new complaint and provision of said documents that were not received in the original complaint : 1. XXXX XXXX is XXXX. She has XXXX XXXX. \n2. I submitted all the documents my attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX provided, however, I was not aware I did not have in my possession the actual judgment. When communicating with XXXX attorney XXXX XXXX, XXXX she provided me with a copy of the judgment of guardianship appointed to me. \n3. I have uploaded/attached the Judgement of Incapacity and Appointment of Guardian of the Person and Estate and the certified letter of guardianship. \n4. For the record, FIRST BANK PUERTO RICO makes it extremely difficult to be contacted. The phone number provided to me was of no use. No one answered the phone or I was holding the line for a very long and exhausting length of time. \n5. Being that the bank is fully committed to compliance, is all about the best interest and full satisfaction of their clientele ; I look forward to seeing this resolved quickly and to be treated with the utmost in customer service. I request the account to be closed and have a certified check to be mailed out to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-26T19:48:47.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"080XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4168864","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO","date_received":"2021-02-26T19:19:29.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["RE : XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I, XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>submitted</em> a <em>complaint</em> against FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO. Original <em>complaint</em> copied below : [ As of XX/XX/XXXX, I was appointed guardianship of my mother, XXXX XXXX, and the bank told me that they need me to <em>go</em> over there and get a lawyer to take the paperwork to the court. And that I need to <em>go</em> to XXXX XXXX with my mother and she has XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[15.42112,"4168864"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17800931","_score":15.143579,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AL XXXX Collector : HighPoint Law Offices , LLC On behalf of : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WI XXXX Complaint Summary I am submitting this complaint because a debt collector, HighPoint Law Offices, contacted me by email with what they represented as an initial debt collection communication. I never gave consent to receive debt collection notices by email, and the original creditor never provided any required safe-harbor notice or opt-out opportunity before transferring my email to a debt collector. The communication also failed to identify the original creditor, which is required by federal law.\n\nThe email violates multiple provisions of the FDCPA and several sections of CFPB Regulation F related to electronic communications, validation notices, consumer privacy, and the use of email in debt collection.\n\nDetails of the Violations 1. Unauthorized Email Contact ( FDCPA 1692c ( a ) ( 1 ) ) I never authorized HighPoint Law Offices to use my email address for debt collection.\n\nCollectors may not contact a consumer via a method that is unauthorized or known to be inconvenient.\n\n2. Illegal Use of Email Under Regulation F ( 12 CFR 1006.6 ( d ) ) Regulation F prohibits collectors from emailing a consumer unless : The consumer directly provided the email for debt collection purposes, or The original creditor followed the CFPB safe harbor procedure ( including prior notice and opt-out rights ) The original creditor \" whomever that maybe '' never sent me any notice stating my email would be transferred to a debt collector or used for collection.\n\nTherefore, the collectors use of my email address was unlawful.\n\n3. Violation of the Reasonable Expectation of Receipt Standard ( 12 CFR 1006.42 ( a ) ) Collectors must prove that the consumer can reasonably expect to receive debt notices at a particular email.\n\nThey can not do so in this case because : I never used email for account communications I never initiated email contact with the collector I never authorized the use of email for debt matters This violates the standard for permissible electronic communication.\n\n4. Missing Required Validation Information ( FDCPA 1692g ( a ) & 12 CFR 1006.34 ( c ) ) The email did not include : A full validation notice Itemization of the alleged debt An itemization date Complete identification of the creditor The disclosures required by federal law Because of this, the email can not legally serve as the required initial notice.\n\n5. Failure to Identify the Original Creditor ( FDCPA 1692g ( a ) ( 2 ) ) The email did not identify the original creditor, which is a required element of the FDCPAs validation notice.\n\nThe email listed Velocity Investments ( a debt buyer ) but did not disclose : The name of the original creditor Their address Any meaningful account-identifying information The assignment history Federal law requires collectors to unambiguously disclose the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and this communication failed to do so.\n\nThis omission alone invalidates the notice.\n\n6. No Opt-Out Method Provided ( 12 CFR 1006.6 ( e ) ) Regulation F requires that any email from a collector include a simple and reasonable method to opt out of further electronic communications.\n\nThe email I received contained no opt-out instructions, which is a direct violation of Regulation F.\n\n7. Risk of Third-Party Disclosure ( FDCPA 1692c ( b ) ) Collectors may not communicate in a manner that risks exposing debt information to a third party.\n\nBecause they used an unverified email address obtained without consent or \" safe-harbor compliance '', this communication risked disclosure to unintended parties.\n\n8. Deceptive Means of Collection ( FDCPA 1692e & 1692e ( 10 ) ) The email implied it was : Properly delivered Legally sufficient Compliant with federal law A valid initial communication None of this was true. \n\nThis constitutes a deceptive and misleading method of debt collection. \n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate HighPoint Law Offices and Velocity Investments for unlawful electronic communication practices. \n\nRequire the collector to cease using email or any unauthorized methods to contact me. \nRequire full compliance with FDCPA and Regulation F before any future communication.\n\nRequire the collector to provide proper written validation if they intend to assert a claim.\n\nConsider enforcement or corrective action due to the multiple violations committed.\n\nRequire confirmation that my email address will not be used for debt collection purposes going forward. Additional avenues will be explored due to these FDPCA violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-30T16:21:09.000Z","issue":"Electronic communications","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"35173","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17800931","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HighPoint Law Offices, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-06T18:09:35.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Frequent or repeated messages"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AL XXXX Collector : HighPoint Law Offices , LLC On behalf of : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WI XXXX <em>Complaint</em> Summary I am <em>submitting</em> this <em>complaint</em> <em>because</em> a debt collector, HighPoint Law Offices, contacted me by email with what they represented as an initial debt collection communication."]},"sort":[15.143579,"17800931"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12251025","_score":12.97383,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Chase Bank Fraud Claim Mishandling & Regulation E Violations Dear CFPB Investigative Team, I am filing this complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . for their mishandling of my fraud claim, failure to properly investigate unauthorized transactions, and potential violations of Regulation E. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered multiple unauthorized transactions on my Chase checking account, including five large fraudulent charges totaling {$5700.00} and additional disputed transactions amounting to {$13000.00} in total. The five largest fraudulent charges began on XX/XX/XXXX, and continued through XX/XX/XXXX. However, additional unauthorized charges dated as far back as XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThese earlier transactions initially went unnoticed by my accounting team because some of them were from merchants with whom I had previously had legitimate relationships but later canceled services. Despite these cancellations, charges continued to be processed, making it difficult to immediately identify the fraud. \n\nThe five largest charges, however, were completely inconsistent with any prior dealings I had with the merchant. While I had legitimately used the companys services in the past, the total amount paid to this company was only approximately {$200.00} in total over the course of three years. The fraudulent charges far exceeded any amount the company even offers for its services. The companys publicly available pricing structure clearly shows that its most expensive product is {$99.00} per year, yet my account was charged between {$720.00} and {$1500.00} per month starting on XX/XX/XXXX, and continuing until XX/XX/XXXX, at which time I noticed the transactions, and immediatley called Chase to submit the claim, and shut off my card.. \n\nUpon discovering the fraud, I immediately contacted Chase and canceled my card to prevent further unauthorized charges. \n\nDespite my timely fraud report, Chase wrongfully denied my claim due to internal procedural failures and their misapplication of Regulation XXXX, effectively blocking me from recovering my stolen funds. \n\nKey Issues With Chases Handling of My Fraud Claim : Chase Submitted the Claim Incorrectly, Against My Explicit Instructions 1. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Chase specifically to dispute only five large fraudulent transactions totaling {$5700.00}. \n\nFrom the outset, the representative misunderstood my request despite multiple clarifications. \nI also asked if there was a way to submit transactions for review to determine merchant identities since I was unable to find any information online about several charges. \nThe representative stated that Chase does not offer any way to research unknown merchant IDs and insisted that I must submit all transactions through her as part of a claim. \n\nXXXX. The call was highly unprofessional and difficult due to serious communication issues. \n\nThe representative was likely in the XXXX ( based on her accent ), and there were multiple barriers to effective communication. \nExtreme background noise : It sounded like the representative was at party or in a chaotic public environment, because it was loud it definitely would not be classified as sounding like a call center of any kind. This made it extremely difficult for either of us to hear each other properly. At one point on the call, I stopped and and had to blatantly question why it was so loud, as it began to make me feel uncomfortable with the situation, as it didn't feel normal, but since I wasn't giving her any private or confidential information, I continued. \nPoor phone connection quality, which caused frequent distorted audio and dropouts. \nSignificant language barrier, requiring me to repeatedly ask her to clarify what she was saying, and repeat herself. Also in several instances, I would say something, and her interpretation of what I had said didn't line up. \n\nXXXX. The call lasted nearly an hour and a half due to these repeated issues : I had to repeat myself multiple times because she misunderstood my request. \nShe frequently repeated transaction details back incorrectly, often stating the wrong amounts, wrong dates, or mispronouncing merchant names. \nShe put me on hold at least 5-6 times when the background noise became unbearable for either of us to communicate.\n\n4. At no point during this call did the representative warn me that she was going to be submitting all transactions at once, nor did she warn me that when/if she did submit them all at once could result in an automatic denial under Chases 30-day fraud policy.\n\nShe never advised me that submitting a claim this way would fall outside of Chases guidelines or could negatively impact my ability to recover lost funds.\n\nIf the representative had properly informed me, I would have only submitted the five major fraudulent transactions separately to avoid any unnecessary denials.\n\nInstead, I was misled into believing that submitting all transactions would simply allow for a more thorough investigation, when in reality, this directly caused my claim to be denied. \n\nXXXX. Despite my clear instructions, she submitted the entire list of XXXX transactions instead of just the five I intended to dispute. \n\nThis led to Chase denying my claim under their 30-day policy, which would not have happened had my original request been followed.\n\nBecause of this miscommunication and mishandling, my largest fraudulent transactions, that fell well within a dispute window, were wrongfully denied.\n\nHad Chase followed my instructions, my largest fraudulent transactions would have been reviewed under Regulation E protections.\n\n6. Evidence Available for CFPB Review I have full audio recordings of all phone calls with Chase representatives, including this call, which I can submit for review.\n\nThese recordings clearly document the representatives inability to process my request properly, the miscommunications, language barriers, and errors in transaction input. \nThe audio confirms that I specifically requested only five large transactions be disputed and that the representative wrongfully submitted all XXXX transactions instead, directly leading to my claim being denied. \n\nXXXX. Chase Failed to Investigate the Merchants Pricing Structure Which Is A Clear Oversight The fraudulent charges originated from a cloud storage company ( XXXX ), where my legitimate annual renewal fee was only {$99.00} per year. \nDespite this, fraudulent charges of {$700.00} {$1500.00} per month were processed on my accountfar exceeding the merchants highest publicly listed price. \nChase failed to verify the pricing model of this merchant, ignoring an obvious fraud red flag. \n\nXXXX. Chase Provided Contradictory and Misleading Information on Their Ability to Reopen the Case from multiple different fraud representatives, supervisors, all the way up to the Executive Fraud Department member I spoke with, and I have recordings with every person. \n\nChase representatives initially told me I could submit additional evidence at my local branch. \nHowever, upon scheduling an appointment to go into a Chase branch, the bank manager confirmed that Chase branches do not directly process fraud claims and that they have no recourse, nor have any authority in the decision making process of a fraud claim. I was told that a branches procedure for a claim was exactly the same as if I was sitting at home, and made the call myself, as all they would be able to do is call the exat same number I call, and then hand the phone to me. \nI was later informed that fraud claims can not be reopened at all, contradicting Chases earlier guidance. \n\n9. Chase Misapplied Regulation E in Denying My Claim Chase justified their denial by claiming Regulation E only allows refunds for transactions within 30 days of the earliest transaction in the claim, and refunded me an insignificant amount in correlation to the full amount of funds that had been fraudelently withdrawn. \nTheir continued claim that Regulation E only allows refunds for transactions within 30 days is incorrect, and must be something that every representative at Chase is trained to say. Regulation E states that banks must investigate fraud reported within 60 days of the first statement reflecting the unauthorized charge. While transactions beyond this 60-day window may not be required under Regulation E, banks still have the discretion to refund unauthorized charges based on their fraud departments findings. Chase failed to properly investigate and chose not to exercise discretion in refunding fraudulent charges, despite clear evidence that the transactions were unauthorized.\n\nI asked several representatives, supervisors, and the Executive Chase Fraud department member assigned to my case, when I escalated the claim whether the 30 day policy about Regulation E that had been stated to me by multiple Chase representatives was a Chase policy or in fact Regulation E, and every Chase representative that I spoke with refused to answer whether their 30-day rule was a bank-imposed policy or a federal requirement, strongly implying that their denial was based on internal Chase rules rather than federal law.\n\n10. I Had Already Attempted to Resolve This Issue Before Filing My Fraud Claim Prior to reaching out to Chase, I had already contacted XXXX and the individual merchants. \nXXXX refused to assist, stating I needed to resolve it directly with the merchants. \nEvery merchant who I could find customer support numbers for, refused to refund my money, even when I had previously canceled services. Several transaction IDs had no name, or the name had absolutely nothing online with the designation on the transaction ID, and how and why the intial call was made. \nSome fraudulent charges even came through with a merchant ID labeled NoName, which is clear evidence of unauthorized activity. \nChase was my last line of defense, yet they failed to act in accordance with their regulatory obligations. \n\nWhy CFPB Intervention is Necessary Chase has demonstrated negligence, procedural failures, and a misrepresentation of federal law in handling my fraud dispute. Their refusal to conduct a proper investigation has resulted in an unfair financial burden of {$5700.00} in major fraudulent transactions and a total of {$13000.00} wrongfully denied. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB : 1. Investigate Chases misapplication of Regulation E and their refusal to properly process unauthorized transactions.\n\n2. Require Chase to re-evaluate my fraud claim based on the correct interpretation of Regulation E and the CFPBs enforcement guidance.\n\n3. Review Chases internal fraud policies to determine whether they are misleading consumers about their legal rights under federal law. If I hadn't been told by the bank representative that I had a meeting with that I could ask to escalate my claim to the Executive Fraud Department at Chase, that wouldn't have even happened, because every supervisor I spoke with said that the claim was already closed, and escalation would not be submitted. I was further told that the process by which a Chase fraud specialist undergoes for each claim is being given \" random '' transaction from the entirety of a claim and doesn't even review the entire claim. I was then told that more than likely the claim representative that was assigned to my case didn't even look at the whole thing because ( again they claimed wrongful Regulation E policy ) they already submitted what was allowed under Regulation E 's 30 day policy, and the case had been closed, and could not be re-opened, nor could I try to open another claim for the XXXX large transactions that DID almost all fall within 60 days of XX/XX/XXXX when I submitted the claim. These satements were told to me multiple times by two different Supervisors at Chase, which again I have attached all of the recordings in audio.\n\n4. Ensure that Chase provides a clear and documented explanation as to why they refused to answer direct questions about their fraud claim policies.\n\nThis is a serious matter that requires immediate regulatory intervention. Chases failure to investigate clear fraud indicators and their misleading statements regarding Regulation E compliance set a dangerous precedent for consumer protections. \n\nI appreciate the CFPBs prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-28T01:12:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77377","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12251025","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-02-27T23:31:02.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chases failure to investigate clear fraud indicators and their misleading statements regarding <em>Regulation</em> E <em>compliance</em> set a dangerous precedent for consumer protections. \n\nI appreciate the CFPBs prompt attention to this matter and look <em>forward</em> to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[12.97383,"12251025"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18882718","_score":12.615755,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint because Chime Financial , Inc. failed to conduct a lawful, reasonable, and goodfaith investigation of my dispute regarding merchandise that was not as described. Chime denied my dispute without reviewing the evidence I submitted, without contacting the merchant, and without providing the documentation they relied upon to make their decision. These actions appear to violate Regulation E and may constitute unfair or deceptive practices under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law ( CCFPL ). \n\nDetails of the Issue 1. Nature of the Transaction I purchased merchandise from a seller located outside the United States. The item I received was not as described. The merchant does not provide a phone number, and email is the only method of communication.\n\n2. Attempts to Resolve with Merchant I contacted the merchant multiple times requesting return instructions or a refund.\n\nThe merchant responded only with automated form emails stating they would get back to me. \n\nThey never provided return instructions, an exchange option, or any meaningful response. \n\nI submitted copies of all email correspondence to Chime as part of my dispute. \n\nXXXX. Chimes Handling of the Dispute Chime denied my dispute. When I requested the documentation Chime relied upon to make their decision, I received only my initial dispute application. \n\nNone of the evidence I submitted was included. \n\nThere is no indication Chime contacted the merchant. \n\nThere is no indication Chime reviewed the emails I provided. \n\nThis strongly suggests that Chime did not conduct a reasonable or complete investigation. \n\nLegal Concerns Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) Regulation E requires financial institutions to conduct a reasonable, goodfaith investigation of consumer disputes involving electronic fund transfers. A denial issued without reviewing evidence or contacting the merchant does not meet this standard. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Financial Protection Law ( CCFPL ) Chime is subject to the CCFPL, which prohibits : Unfair acts or practices Deceptive acts or practices Abusive acts or practices Failing to review evidence, failing to contact the merchant, and failing to provide documentation relied upon in a denial may constitute violations of the CCFPL. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Protection Framework California maintains broad consumerprotection laws requiring financial institutions to treat consumers fairly and transparently. Chimes actions appear inconsistent with these obligations.\n\nRequested Resolution I am requesting DFPIs assistance to ensure that Chime : Conducts a full reinvestigation of my dispute.\n\nReviews all evidence I submitted.\n\nProvides a detailed explanation of the basis for the original denial.\n\nDemonstrates that proper investigative steps were taken, including merchant outreach. \n\nEnsures future compliance with Regulation E and the CCFPL.\n\nAttachments Provided Copies of all email correspondence with the merchant Screenshots or documentation showing the item was not as described Chimes dispute denial Chimes response to my request for documentation used in the denial If youd like, I can also prepare : A timeline of events A cover letter to accompany your DFPI submission A followup escalation letter to Chimes executive resolution team Just tell me what you want to add. \n\nA follow up escalation letter to Chime ; s executive resolution team Absolutely heres a polished, forceful escalation letter tailored for Chimes Executive Resolution Team. Its written in a tone that signals you are serious, organized, and prepared to involve regulators if necessary, without sounding hostile or unprofessional. It builds on your earlier appeal and frames the issue in a way that executivelevel reviewers tend to respond to.\n\nYou can send this by email or postal mail. \n\nEscalation Letter to Chime Executive Resolution Team [ Your Name ] [ Your Address ] [ City, State ZIP ] [ Email Address ] [ Phone Number ] [ Date ] Chime Financial , Inc. Executive Resolution Team Subject : Escalation Request Improper Dispute Denial and Failure to Conduct Required Investigation To the Executive Resolution Team, I am writing to formally escalate my dispute regarding Case # [ insert case number ], which was denied despite clear evidence that the merchandise I received was not as described and despite multiple attempts on my part to resolve the issue directly with the merchant. The handling of this dispute raises serious concerns about whether Chime conducted the investigation required under federal and California law. \n\nI have already submitted an appeal to the Dispute Resolution Department, but given the deficiencies in the original investigation and the lack of transparency in the denial, I am requesting executivelevel review. \n\nXXXX. Summary of the Issue The merchandise I received was not as described. \n\nThe merchant is located outside the United States and provides no phone number. \n\nI contacted the seller multiple times requesting return instructions or a refund. \n\nThe seller responded only with automated form emails and never provided return information. \n\nI submitted all email correspondence to Chime as evidence of my goodfaith efforts. \n\nDespite this, my dispute was denied. \n\nXXXX. Deficiencies in Chimes Investigation When I requested the documentation Chime relied upon to deny my dispute, I received only my initial dispute application. None of the evidence I submitted was included. There is no indication that Chime : Contacted the merchant Reviewed the emails I provided Considered the sellers refusal to provide return instructions Evaluated the merchandise not as described claim in accordance with regulatory standards This strongly suggests that the investigation was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of a reasonable, goodfaith investigation. \n\nXXXX. Applicable Legal Standards Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) Financial institutions must conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes involving electronic fund transfers. A denial issued without reviewing evidence or contacting the merchant does not satisfy this requirement. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Financial Protection Law ( CCFPL ) As a financial services provider operating in California, Chime is subject to the CCFPL, which prohibits : Unfair acts or practices Deceptive acts or practices Abusive acts or practices Denying a dispute without reviewing evidence or providing documentation relied upon in the decision may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under this law. \n\n4. Requested Executive Action I am requesting that the Executive Resolution Team : Conduct a full reinvestigation of my dispute. \n\nEnsure that all evidence I submitted is reviewed and attached to the case file. \n\nProvide a detailed explanation of the basis for the original denial. \n\nConfirm that proper investigative steps were taken, including merchant outreach. \n\nEnsure that Chimes handling of this matter complies with Regulation XXXX and the CCFPL. \n\nXXXX. Notice of Potential Regulatory Complaint If this matter can not be resolved through proper reinvestigation, I am prepared to submit a formal complaint to the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( DFPI ), as well as any other appropriate regulatory bodies. My goal is simply to receive the fair and lawful investigation that consumers are entitled to. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to a timely and appropriate resolution. \n\nSincerely, [ Your Name ] If you want, I can also prepare : A shorter, more assertive version A version tailored for CFPB escalation A timeline attachment to include with the letter Just tell me what direction you want to go. \n\na version tailored for cfpb escalation Absolutely heres a polished, assertive version crafted specifically for a CFPB escalation. Its written in the tone and structure that tends to resonate with federal regulators : factual, concise, and focused on procedural failures and consumerrights violations. It avoids emotional language and sticks to the regulatory issues the CFPB cares about. \n\nYou can paste this directly into the CFPB complaint portal or send it as a supporting letter. \n\nCFPB Escalation Letter Improper Dispute Handling by Chime [ Your Name ] [ Your Address ] [ City, State ZIP ] [ Email Address ] [ Phone Number ] [ Date ] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Subject : Complaint Regarding Chime Financial , Inc. Failure to Conduct Proper Dispute Investigation To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint regarding Chime Financial , Inc. for failing to conduct a lawful and reasonable investigation of my dispute involving merchandise that was not as described. Chime denied my dispute without reviewing the evidence I submitted, without contacting the merchant, and without providing the documentation they relied upon to make their decision. These actions raise concerns under Regulation E and CFPB standards for fair dispute resolution. \n\nXXXX. Summary of the Transaction and Issue I purchased merchandise from a seller located outside the United States. The item I received was not as described. The merchant provides no phone number, and email is the only method of communication. \n\nI contacted the merchant multiple times, requesting return instructions or a refund. The merchant responded only with automated form emails stating they would get back to me, and never provided return information or any meaningful assistance. \n\nI submitted all email correspondence to Chime as part of my dispute. \n\nXXXX. Chimes Handling of the Dispute Chime denied my dispute. When I requested the documentation Chime relied upon to make their decision, I received only my initial dispute application. None of the evidence I submitted was included. \n\nThere is no indication that Chime : Contacted the merchant Reviewed the emails I provided Considered the sellers refusal to provide return instructions Evaluated the merchandise not as described claim in accordance with Regulation XXXX This suggests that Chime did not conduct a reasonable or goodfaith investigation. \n\n3. Regulatory Concerns Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) Regulation E requires financial institutions to conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes involving electronic fund transfers. A denial issued without reviewing evidence or contacting the merchant does not meet this standard.\n\nCFPB Expectations for Dispute Resolution CFPB guidance emphasizes that financial institutions must : Review all available evidence Consider consumersubmitted documentation Conduct a fair and thorough investigation Provide clear explanations of dispute outcomes Chimes actions appear inconsistent with these expectations. \n\nXXXX. Requested CFPB Action Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to ensure that Chime complies with federal consumerprotection requirements and provides a fair resolution. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-21T06:15:57.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"757XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18882718","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-01-21T05:10:57.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Reviews all evidence I <em>submitted</em>.\n\nProvides a detailed explanation of the basis for the original denial.\n\nDemonstrates that proper investigative steps were taken, including merchant outreach. \n\nEnsures future <em>compliance</em> with <em>Regulation</em> E and the CCFPL."]},"sort":[12.615755,"18882718"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16536286","_score":12.607492,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"* * Subject : * * Formal Demand to Reopen Investigation Under Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act New Verified Evidence ( XXXX XXXX Superior Court Case No. XXXX ) Cash app support said they could not they could not go forward because they could not prove my transactions was unauthorized and they said they closed the case unless I could provide new proof. I am now submitting * * new, verified material evidence * * that was * * not available at the time of your initial determination * * and that directly impacts the outcome of this case. \n\nAfter speaking with * * Assistant District Attorney XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  of the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX District Attorneys Office * *, I was advised to submit this evidence directly to you for reconsideration and to note that her office may be contacted for confirmation. \n( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Re : * * * * Reopening Required Under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) * * and the * * Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693f ) * * * * Subject : * * Criminal Theft of Approximately {$8000.00} on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Reference : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Superior Court Case No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Summary of New Evidence * * 1. * * Certified Court Filing * * An official accusation filed and signed by XXXX * * XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Superior Court * *, charging XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with * Computer Theft ( O.C.G.A. 16-9-93 ( a ) ) * and naming me, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, as the victim. \n2. * * Official Sheriffs Report * * Case # XXXX, originally submitted with my prior claim, documenting the initial theft and identifying the same suspect. \n3. * * Verified Booking Record / XXXX * * Publicly available booking confirmation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  for computer-related theft, consistent with the method and nature of my loss. \n\nThese documents constitute * * new, verifiable, material evidence * * establishing that the disputed transfers were the direct result of a * * criminal act of unauthorized access * * to my Cash App account. You may independently verify all documents with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX District Attorneys Office * * or via the * * Georgia Superior Court docket * *. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  My Cooperation and Cash Apps Continuing Noncompliance * * Although * * Regulation E places the burden on the financial institution * * to prove that a disputed transaction was authorized, I have nevertheless gone far beyond what the law requires of a consumer. \nOver the past three years, I have : * Reported the theft within minutes of discovery, * Provided a * * police report * * and * * suspect identification * *, * Submitted * * supporting documentation * * through every official channel ( Cash App Support, XXXX, and CFPB ), and * Now obtained and provided * * court-verified evidence * * confirming that the person named in my report was criminally charged with computer theft. \n\nDespite these efforts, Cash App has failed to reopen or properly reinvestigate my claim in good faith. This is not only unfair it is a clear breach of the duties imposed under * * 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 * * and * * 15 U.S.C. 1693f * *, which require a reasonable investigation and a good-faith review of all relevant evidence prior to denial. \n\nI have fulfilled every obligation expected of a consumer under federal law. I am respectfully requesting that Cash App now fulfill its obligations under that same law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Legal Authority for Immediate Reopening * * * * * Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) ) * * mandates reopening when new material evidence is provided that could affect a prior determination. \n* * * The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693f ) * * requires a fair and complete investigation of unauthorized transfers, with restitution to the consumer where appropriate. \n* The * * CFPB Consent Order against Block , Inc. ( File No. XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) * * specifically requires the company to compensate consumers whose unauthorized-transfer disputes were mishandled or denied without adequate investigation. \n\nYour company is therefore under a * * legal and regulatory obligation * * to reopen my case and evaluate this new evidence. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Requested Actions * * 1. * * Acknowledge receipt * * of this submission and attachments within * * 3 business days * *. \n2. * * Reopen and re-investigate * * my claim consistent with Regulation E and EFTA, and provide a * * written interim status * * within * * 7 business days * *. \n3. Provide a * * final written determination * * ( including your findings and supporting documentation ) within * * 45 calendar days * *, unless you provide a written justification for a lawful extension. \n4. Upon confirmation that the transfers were unauthorized, * * immediately issue full restitution * * of the stolen funds, including any consequential losses, consistent with federal requirements and the CFPB consent order. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Verification Contact * * For verification, your legal or compliance staff may contact : * * Assistant District Attorney XXXX XXXX * * XXXX XXXX District Attorneys Office XXXX Judicial Circuit ( Refer to the publicly listed office contact number and email ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Regulatory Notice and Escalation Plan * * If you fail to act in good faith on this submission, I will : * File an * * updated CFPB complaint * * citing violation of Regulation E and the CFPBs XX/XX/XXXX enforcement order, * Provide this documentation and a compliance summary to the * * Better Business Bureau * *, * * Georgia Department of Banking & Finance * *, and the * * XXXX XXXX District Attorneys Office * *, and * Retain counsel to pursue all civil remedies available to me under * * EFTA 1693m * *. \n\nAll communications and responses related to this matter will be preserved and forwarded to the CFPB for oversight review. \n\n-- - * * Respectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attachments : * * 1. XXXX XXXX Superior Court Filing XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, signed ) 2. XXXX XXXX Sheriffs Report Case # XXXX 3. Verified Booking Record XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX -- - * * Next Step Checklist : * * 1. Attach your * * three verified documents * * to this letter. \n2. Send this email to * * XXXX XXXX / Cash App Legal & Compliance * *. \n3. Upload the same PDF and text to your * * CFPB complaint portal * * under New Material Evidence Regulation E Reopen Request. \n4. ( Optional ) Submit the same to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  with a note : Cash App has failed to comply with Regulation E obligations despite court-verified new evidence. \n\n-- -","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-13T22:29:59.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"30044","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16536286","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-13T22:25:15.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* * Subject : * * Formal Demand to Reopen Investigation Under <em>Regulation</em> E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act New Verified Evidence ( XXXX XXXX Superior Court Case No. XXXX ) Cash app support said they could not they could not <em>go</em> <em>forward</em> <em>because</em> they could not prove my transactions was unauthorized and they said they closed the case unless I could provide new proof."]},"sort":[12.607492,"16536286"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10339559","_score":11.960142,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is against Cashapp. I have been using my Cashapp with XXXX XXXXXXXX for over 4 years. During the 4 years I have attempted to have Cashapp consolidate my accounts as I could never receive funds without having to send a request for them. In XXXX they never even offered phone support and the only thing I would receive is canned messages that provided me useless information and inoperable loops. \n\nMoving forward to XXXX I attempted to submit a request for funds to an individual and cashapp had blocked it and that person could not send me funds because my account was still broken. Cashapp did finally come up with a number to call and the initial representative said they closed my cashapp in XXXX. That did explain why my account was running raggedy but then my concern was if they closed the wrong account what accounts then were left out in cyberspace opened for possible compromise. No answer and they said they would fix my account. Three representatives later they kept saying the account was closed so I sent sceeenshots to show it was open and that I was sending payments and receiving payments from requests I sent. \n\nThey instead of fixing the issue they disabled my entire cashapp so my username is disabled and all of my transaction statements etc are gone in the wind. When I told them this was not the resolution expected I received a canned response to say unless I had anything different to say they were closing out my case. \n\nI told them to send me the statements and transactions to that account in which they said they don't have. It's like they couldn't fix the problem so they dismantled the account and deleted everything so their record look squeaky clean. To make matters worse they sent me a survey this morning to rate their experience which is completely biased favoring towards them. This means when I gave them the 1 star for awfulness they came back with 4 responses and asked what went well. In my case there was nothing out of those responses that went well but it would not let you continue until you picked one mind you all 4 responses are in favor of Cashapp. Once you selected the response the survey was over with no way of saying what didn't go well or to provide any additional feedback. They did this to cover their assets so they can say look the customer said we did this well when that is not the case. \n\nCashapp also took money from my account for a transaction that never processed in a timely fashion and it's been 2 years since I have been trying to resolve that with the same thing above transpiring and now that info is disappeared too as when you go through support on that account it erases when they delete your account. They have been practicing very abuse financial behavior to the point I'm now here! Cashapp also charged me {$5.00} for a cashapp card in which I told them I wanted to be refunded and they said I wasn't billed but clearly it is coming out of my bank account. \n\nI also want to include that when I now go to statements there is no info except a new cashapp card was ordered for this new account I had to set up with a different ID. The screenshots that I'm providing is not even half of the communication that occurred as most of it was done through their support side and all conversations, complaints, and cases have been deleted. \n\nI have never been so disgusted with a payment platform such as this and also a platform that clearly doesn't understand what compliance regulation means nor have the ability to uphold them while causing damage and harm to consumers.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-03T10:53:28.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"681XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10339559","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-10-03T09:54:58.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have never been so disgusted with a payment platform such as this and also a platform that clearly doesn't understand what <em>compliance</em> <em>regulation</em> means nor have the ability to uphold them while causing damage and harm to consumers."]},"sort":[11.960142,"10339559"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13355480","_score":10.965418,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Im filing this follow-up complaint because the situation with my previous case has become much more serious, and I now believe the bank deliberately avoided its responsibilities. After the CFPB forwarded my original complaint to Bank of America, I was contacted by a representative named XXXX XXXX, who told me she had been assigned to my case as my point of contact. She gave me her direct number : XXXX. At first, she was polite and seemed helpful. I believed she had more access or authority to help resolve the issue, especially regarding my request for a provisional credit and a hardship review. \n\nHowever, nothing meaningful ever came from her involvement. When we attempted to file the hardship request, she told me over a week later that she still hadnt received any internal response. I had to suggest she escalate the matter to her supervisor. Eventually, she got back to me and said that based on the original investigation, the bank would not issue any credit. I asked her directly if there was anything else that could be done. She told me nothat I just had to wait. At the time, I was still trying to stay calm and understand the process. \n\nThen, on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from the bank claiming that my dispute had been resolved and showing only a new claim for {$48.00}. The letter was misleading and inaccurate. It stated that some money had been returned from the merchants, but when I checked, the amount was inaccurate and most of the chargebacks were still missing. I recognized this as a major red flag. From that moment, I tried to contact XXXX multiple timescalling her direct number and leaving voicemails. As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, I have not received a single response. She has not called back once since I received that misleading letter. \n\nBecause of this, I called the bank through the regular customer service number and explained the situation again. The representative confirmed that the letter was incorrect and that my original claims were still open. I asked if I could be transferred to XXXX. They told me that was not possible. So once again, I was left on my own, repeating my case from the beginning. I submitted another escalation request to have the bank send me a corrected letter showing which claims are still being investigated. I was told that since the request was submitted on a Friday, Id need to wait at least two business days, but that it could take up to a full week to receive the updated documentation. Meanwhile, I still have no accurate written update about the status of my claim. \n\nSince Ive had no way to get accurate answers from Bank of America, Ive taken it upon myself and Ive started researching and contacting some of the merchants listed in the disputed transactions. Ive spent time trying to figure out who these companies are, where they operate from, and whether theyre even legitimate. Some of the company names Ive looked into include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. These are just a few examples. Ive attempted to reach out to the ones I was able to find online or through business directories. Many of them dont appear in any credible public listings, and several have no valid contact information at all. \n\nEach time Ive followed up with Bank of America to ask about the status of the investigation, the only answer I receive is that the case is still under review. But when I ask directly whether any of the merchants have submitted documentation, the answer is always no. Not a single company has provided any evidence, even though many days have passed since the dispute was opened. On top of that, Bank of America can clearly see that some of these merchants have already issued refunds directlydespite the fact that the original chargebacks were never even sent to them when the case was first closed. That alone shows that the investigation was closed too early, before all necessary steps were taken. The bank could have easily seen that this case involved multiple international merchants and required further review, but they chose not to pursue it at that time, claiming they were not required to. \n\nNow, with more time and perspective, I see this situation more clearly. At the time I filed the first complaint, I was overwhelmed and confused. I didnt fully understand what had happened or why. But now that Ive gone through all of this, the pattern is obvious. I believe Bank of America intentionally closed my case just before the XXXX deadline in order to avoid issuing the provisional credit I was entitled to under federal regulations. Once a case is marked closedeven if done in errorthey can claim theyre no longer obligated to provide that credit. This loophole leaves consumers completely vulnerable. In my case, it meant the bank could walk away from its responsibility without ever completing a full investigation or offering me any protection. Thats not just unfairits dangerous. \n\nWhat this shows is a system that allows a financial institution to prioritize its own liability over its duty to its customers. It allows them to manipulate deadlines and avoid compliance with federal rules by simply shutting the door before it ever fully opens. I trusted that there were consumer protections in place for situations exactly like this. But now I realize that if the bank decides not to follow through, and no one holds them accountable, those protections mean nothing. By failing to conduct a proper investigation, refusing to issue a provisional credit, and then going silent after issuing a misleading letter, Bank of America left me financially stranded. I had no way to stop the damage. I was forced out of my apartment, fell behind on child support, and lost my real estate licensemy only source of income. In my state, when you fall behind on child support, they begin suspending your licenses. Thats exactly what happened to me. First, they suspended my real estate license, and now Im at risk of losing my drivers license as well. These arent just inconveniencestheyre severe, compounding consequences caused directly by the banks failure to act.\n\nAt this point, its clear the system was never designed to protect me in a situation like this unless the bank chose to do the right thing. And they didnt. Thats why Im turning to the CFPBnot just for help in my individual case, but because this situation exposes a serious flaw in how consumer protections are enforced. If a bank can close a case right before the deadline and use that as a way to sidestep their obligation under Regulation E, then those regulations mean nothing. Im asking the CFPB to recognize this as more than a complaint. This is a call for accountability. I want my full case re-opened and reviewed properly, with transparency and oversight. I want to see action taken to correct the wrongs done herenot only for me but to ensure banks cant continue using these tactics to avoid their legal responsibilities and to prevent the breach of critical thinking that occurs when institutions prioritize procedures over people.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-06T14:33:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13355480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-05-06T14:14:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Im filing this follow-up <em>complaint</em> <em>because</em> the situation with my previous case has become much more serious, and I now believe the bank deliberately avoided its responsibilities. After the CFPB <em>forwarded</em> my original <em>complaint</em> to Bank of America, I was contacted by a representative named XXXX XXXX, who told me she had been assigned to my case as my point of contact. She gave me her direct number : XXXX. At first, she was polite and seemed helpful."]},"sort":[10.965418,"13355480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6316621","_score":10.69409,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I had received solicitations from Carrington Home Mortgage for some time regarding refinancing my home to get cash out and pay off additional debts. I had phone calls and received solicitations when logging into the Carrington Home Mortgage portal to make my payments. \n\nOn XX/XX/2022 I discussed my options with a Mortgage Loan Officer out of Arizona. His name is XXXX XXXX XXXX. We reviewed my current income, my current debts and decided to move forward with a Second Mortgage through Carrington Home Mortgage, as he stated that all look to be in line with their requirements and I could get up to 85 % of the home value which their portal stated I had a estimated home value of {$480000.00}. I wanted enough to get my current debts paid off and we discussed putting the Loan to Value on an estimated {$450000.00} so that we would be okay with paying off my debts. This say week I received a debt collection call from Carrington Home Mortgage saying I was late on a my first mortgage and a payment was due or information would be sent to the credit agencies, however I have until the 15th of each month to make a payment. This was a violation of XXXX, as this was an unfair call and deceptive knowing I have additional days to make my payment. I informed the agent on that call that I was getting a second mortgage and was also going to be making my payment online. I was very confused as to why I was receiving this call when there was clear communication with XXXX of Carrington Home Mortgage Loan Officers that I was making payment to them and had never missed a payment. \n\nXXXX sent over documents which were signed and sent back, he also gave me a list of documents I needed to upload. I proceeded to upload requested documents and XXXX asked me to email them to him as well as it would be easier. As I reviewed the Initial Disclosures, there was an error and XXXX said this would be corrected on the Closing Documents. Essentially {$1700.00} in fees would be removed when the loan was in processing and mentioned I would need to pay for an appraisal which would be {$550.00} and could be put on a credit card that we are paying off. All of this communication was via email. During these email exchanges I let XXXX know that I needed to contact my old employer for two years of W2 's and was able to get those documents uploaded, I also send him two years of tax transcripts and returns to help with the loan processing. \n\nAfter all documents were uploaded and everything XXXX mentioned needed to be signed were signed, I asked what were the next steps via email and he said all is great, we will just wait for processing. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I emailed XXXX to see what was going on because I had not heard anything nor had been informed of an appraisal. He responded that there was no need for anything and he or the processor would reach out to me with next steps. The next day XXXX talked to me and he forgot to email the link for the appraisal and because it's a 2nd that the appraisal should only be {$220.00}. He then sent a link to me and I was able to go in and pay for an appraisal which was listed as {$550.00} and he said there could be glitch in the system but to pay it anyway and I put the {$550.00}, on the XXXX XXXX Credit Card which was being paid off with the 2nd mortgage. This was via email exchange. He said that at the end of the day, he would made sure it was squared away either way on the mortgage or to pay for it. \n\nOn XX/XX/2022 I had an appraiser come out to the home and perform an appraisal. The value came back as {$450000.00} on the Cost Approach, and {$430000.00} on the Sales Comparison Approach. \n\nI emailed XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to ask which valuation Carrington would be using for the mortgage and received no response. On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, I got a notice of incomplete application and email XXXX again to ask why I was receiving that. I had already uploaded documents, I had already signed documents, I had an appraisal and then was receiving a notice of incomplete application. \n\nI received no response from XXXX and replied to the email address where I got the notice of incomplete application, this was XXXX manager XXXX XXXX. I also attempted to call XXXX and did not receive an answer. This all took place on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI attempted to call XXXX several times over the next week with no response. I also called another loan officer with Carrington Home Mortgage who answered via their general line and told me he found the loan application, and that XXXX had not taken action on it. He gave me the contact information for XXXX XXXX, and I told him I had already attempted to contact XXXX XXXX. That loan officer then gave me the XXXX 's contact information, that XXXX is named XXXX XXXX. \n\nI called XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and left a message, and then I emailed XXXX and XXXX once again. This time I told them all docs have been uploaded and signed, nothing is left for me to do and I have not heard back from anyone regarding my 2nd mortgage. I was hopeful to have this process done and approved within the first week of XXXX as XXXX had initially stated that is our timeframe. \n\nXXXX finally emailed me back less than 10 minutes after my email and told me the loan had not fallen off his radar, but it was in processing and he would let me know the status ASAP by the end of the day. \n\nI waited until XX/XX/XXXX to reach back out because again, I had not heard anything from XXXX and we were coming up on 30 days since submitting the loan application with no response. I emailed again on XX/XX/XXXX and asked if he was too busy to help, could he get the loan to a loan officer who would help. I also left a voice mail for XXXX and did not hear back. \n\nI am now past 30 days from initial application, and this is a violation of ECOA. I understand that Carrington Mortgage sent the Notice of Incomplete Application, however this is a false Notice of Incomplete Application to extend their timing and allowance for compliance. The notice was stating I needed to upload documents when had been uploaded and this tactic is used often with mortgage companies to avoid having to follow compliance rules and regulations. \n\nI worked in the Mortgage Compliance space for many years and find what I have experienced to be a violation on UDAAP, ECOA and privacy ( as the loan officer asked me to provide documents outside of the secure portal ) I would like to have my loan closed so that I can get the high APR debts paid and also the money back for the appraisal. This process along each step and communication was reassured by XXXX XXXX that things were moving and here I am on XX/XX/XXXX, with no updates on the 2nd Mortgage. I have lost a significant amount of trust in Carrington Home Mortgage, and this includes receiving that collections call about the XXXX payment which was made before the XXXX. \n\nBecause I am in the industry, I am aware of CFPB actions taken against Carrington for other violations under the CARES Act, and I would hope this is a one off case that I am experiencing but they are loosing consumer trust and financially impacted me. I ask that the CFPB look at this complaint seriously and consider how these violation may also be happening to other consumers or customers of Carrington Home Mortgage. \n\nIf I am making payments to this Mortgage Servicer and Mortgage Lender, I expect to be treated with respect, in a timely manner, and that this company has knowledge and actively is participating in training and awareness campaigns for compliance to lending and servicing regulations. \n\nThe lack of communication, the lack of character, and the lack of understanding to their mortgage lending and servicing rules including payments is shocking and I am expected to pay for my mortgage throughout the next 28 years on my first mortgage, and do want to complete my refinance to pay off my debts and this would be 30 years of payments. \n\nThroughout this loan process I was assured that all debts that I discussed with XXXX would be able to be paid, it was just a matter of getting the loan closed. I am still paying my higher APR on debts, and additionally added debt to the XXXX XXXX XXXX per the Loan Officers statements because that would be included in the pay off.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-13T16:27:47.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"84045","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6316621","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","date_received":"2022-12-13T15:27:59.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I understand that Carrington Mortgage sent the Notice of Incomplete Application, however this is a false Notice of Incomplete Application to extend their timing and allowance for <em>compliance</em>. The notice was stating I needed to upload documents when had been uploaded and this tactic is used often with mortgage companies to avoid having to follow <em>compliance</em> rules and <em>regulations</em>."]},"sort":[10.69409,"6316621"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7960592","_score":10.478512,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/2023 Experian XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX. XXXX : I have filed several complaints/disputes with Experian and finally a CFPB Complaint regarding information on my Experian Credit file and the action I requested from XXXX XXXX and Experian. The essence explained to XXXX  was as follows : On XX/XX/2023, XXXXXXXX XXXX acquired our Mortgage from XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/2023, we ( my XXXX and I ) filed for XXXX. On XX/XX/2023, we signed the Reaffirmation Agreement to reaffirm our mortgage. ( Attached ) On XX/XX/2023, XXXXXXXX XXXX executed the Agreement. ( See Agreement ) On XX/XX/2023, we received our discharge. ( Attached ) During and throughout our XXXX we continuously paid our mortgage payment on time. XXXX XXXX, however, continued to report our Mortgage in Bankruptcy in the Bureau. For example, Experian reported in my ( XXXX ) account that the Reaffirmation Agreement was rescinded and shows no Mortgage. You reported both of us to the Credit Reporting Agency as in Bankruptcy/never late, but we are no longer in Bankruptcy and the sheer fact we paid all our payments during and throughout the Bankruptcy should negate stating we are in Bankruptcy. Other than the formality of the reaffirmation agreement by the court, which was signed and approved by XXXX, it should state we are open and current. We were current at the time of Bankruptcy, we continue to be current, and it should be stated as such in all Bureaus. In XXXX you report both our accounts as in Bankruptcy. It should state we are open, never late. XXXX deleted my husbands report showing no mortgage while continuing to improperly report my file. We have called the loss mitigation dept several times, but we are continually told the file was in review. \nACTION Originally Requested : Correct the information in all Bureaus stating the account is open/current and never late. RESPA and FCRA require compliance with proper reporting up to and including the extent of accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \n\nXXXX XXXX : Dear XXXX XXXX, We have reviewed your complaint in which you express concerns regarding the information being furnished to the credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ). We have confirmed that our reports to XXXX and XXXX are accurately reflected in your report. However, we have also confirmed that the information being displayed by Experian does not match our reporting. To remedy this, we have submitted a manual correction request with Experian to update the reporting. The AUD confirmation number for this correction is XXXX. You can use this number to confirm the correction with the CRAs directly. For XX/XX/2023, we submitted our monthly reporting file to the CRAs and included all up-to-date information through XX/XX/2023. ( This is not true because the Experian file ( XXXX file ) has not changed ) We reported that the loan was reaffirmed and that the loan status was open and current. ( Not True, the status of my wifes account did not change in XXXX nor XXXX and XXXX ) We can not speak to what information the CRAs used to update the information independent of our reporting. The correction will address the reporting for XXXX, as the current Experian pay history does not match ours. Experian also only lists the reaffirmation as active from XX/XX/2023 through XX/XX/2023. Experian is also reporting the loan as reaffirmed/rescinded for your co-borrower XXXX. The correction will update the file to reaffirmed, open and current, as well as addressing the pay history discrepancy on her report. ( Whatever XXXX was reporting did not change the file. ) Again, we can not speak with any certainty as to what information Experian is using to update your credit file. They would need to provide that information to you. If you have questions, please feel free to contact us at ( XXXX ) XXXX Monday through Friday XXXX to XXXX and Saturday XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nVery sincerely yours, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX has complied with the original complaint according to them. See attached email excerpts from XXXX XXXX of XXXX Mortgage regarding same. My report was not corrected and still has not been corrected and should be reading the same as my husbands. In the status information, Experian has failed to update the loan amount and remove the statement that the \" XXXX XXXX  Reaffirmation '' was rescinded. We have a mortgage with XXXX XXXX, and it should be reflected correctly as to what the balance really is. It also appears whoever is reviewing this doesnt fully understand that we have been XXXX from bankruptcy. I spoke with the company and was assured by the company representative that they would respond to me with a resolution and correction. I forwarded their email responses to your XXXX, TX XXXX, including the attached excerpts and I have yet to receive a response. I called them and they said the account is in review/dispute, but they assured me they have corrected it. I logged into my account online and it has yet to be done. I asked them for a written copy of my report which they have indicated they are sending. Attached is what they sent me wherein the person I spoke with at the time ASSURED me the report was correct no matter what the APP told me. As you can see the report IS NOT correct. People I am tired of being lied to. You are misrepresenting the status of my mortgage account and have been since XX/XX/2023. At this point XXXX ) I am filing a complaint with the CFPB stating your lack of compliance with RESPA and FCRA and negligence. \nXXXX ) I am contacting my Attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I am going instruct him to prepare the necessary paperwork to file a Defamation lawsuit for failure to conform with Federal Regulation, more specifically RESPA and FCRA. \nIf I do not receive an immediate response and an updated, corrected and true copy of my XXXXXXXX XXXX file within XXXX business days of receipt of this correspondence I will instruct my Attorney to move forward. I trust we can come to a resolution shortly. Thank you. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX CFPB","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-06T20:23:43.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"440XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7960592","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-12-06T20:12:49.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At this point XXXX ) I am filing a <em>complaint</em> with the CFPB stating your lack of <em>compliance</em> with RESPA and FCRA and negligence. \nXXXX ) I am contacting my Attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I am <em>going</em> instruct him to prepare the necessary paperwork to file a Defamation lawsuit for failure to conform with Federal <em>Regulation</em>, more specifically RESPA and FCRA."]},"sort":[10.478512,"7960592"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3163968","_score":10.454107,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am exhausted of this ongoing unfair targeting of my person by this corporation of greed. Experian refuse to add a statement to my credit file as I requested in over and over but Experian refused or ignored my request in violation of at least the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Also Experian ignored my submitted clear and convincing evidence support my legal argument and/or my dispute to delete a XXXX  collection Which have no knowledge of since I have auto pay with XXXX to the present date of this complaint to my understanding which neither I or my bank unauthorized it ever, XXXX has my credit card information that is still valid and current and so XXXX May use that Authorized auto pay from my credit card to get paid for any legitimate charge or amount that XXXX thinks I owe them. Please be advised that auto pay always was used by XXXX who always debuted my credit card account that always more than {$4000.00} available at any time from the date that auto pay was set and given XXXX Authorization to use it until now. Therefore, if XXXX, its collection and Experian do not have any undeniable proofs to provide me ( requested their proofs pursuant to the FCRA and the freedom of information act but never noticed or informed if Experian Validated their proof of any at all ).  Their proofs if any all, must prove that my above legal argument which logically concludes that I should never been late or failing to pay any XXXX account Ive had to the date of this complaint since there is the auto pay that XXXX used it all the time as I indicated above. If they have no proof to refute my above fair and legal argument then the XXXX collection on my current Experians credit file alleging unpaid is Wrong, inaccurate, untrue and information and then Experian must delete that wrong information or negative XXXX allegation introduced by that referenced collector hired by XXXX. Experian impeded my ability to add my own statement rejecting the collection by a legal undeniable legal argument that no one would add it if not sure he could back it with proof. Again Experian resisted or refused adding my own statement which is my right asserted by at least the FCRA. Now a wrong information kept by Experian in retaliation against my person it seemed and if continued to ruin my many years of great and exceptional credit payments credibility of 100 % on time payments of all my accounts Ive ever had. the referenced collection must be deleted permanently and now. This issue took more than 30 days and new issues developed as follow : Below is my electronic communications via email with Experian. which this bureau can not deny. Experian Retaliation to keep a collection by force in my clean credit report took another extreme level of retaliatory actions from Experian. I tried to called to speak with a live Experian Representative and I tried all available Experian phone numbers including the Experian subscribers or members phone to contact for help but that also was unsuccessful because every time I get the same machine recording and no option to direct my call to a live Experian Representative. It is now my understanding that Experian is Blacklisting my personal information to restrict me from speaking to an Experian Representative. Thus new Experians retaliatory adverse action is in addition to the restriction Experian subjected me to impede my ailing to have online access using experian public online services to dispute or to place my own written statement so and authorized person to pull my Experian credit would see the statement so I could have a chance for instance to get approved for credit or loan. Unfortunately Experian and in retaliation chose to not refrain to restrict me from those rights or online services like other customers. Experian did not provide me or failed to provide me and/or broke the law refusing to provide, and pursuant to the freedom of information act and/or privacy act, all the proofs if any at all which XXXX  obtained from XXXX and/or XXXX collection company in order to prove my legal argument was wrong so it gave Experian a reason to keep or leave the referenced XXXX collection in my Experian credit file : my legal argument is shown clearly in one of the files that I attached to my complaint. \n\nIt is unfair what Experian has done to damage my good standing rated credit history with no failure to pay and neither no late payment ever. Placing one collection alleging that I owe XXXX {$1300.00} despite that I proved to Experian many times that it should never existed so I have no knowledge of it and I never failed to pay neither was late to pay any XXXX account that I ever had with that auto pay in place still authorized by my person. Because XXXX  can use auto pay that I set up and never changed it or unauthorized it so my bank neither interfered in it by proof. \n\n-the CFPB has record of same issue of XXXX alleging with no proof that I Owe them {$1300.00} just different collection company name and the credit bureaux deleted before because my proofs are undeniable that collection or any collection alleging that I owe XXXX {$1300.00} is wrong, untrue and must never be placed again after I refuted with proofs coupled months ago but Who Can stop this retaliation against my person? \n-my credit file has zero missed payment exceptional and also never late at any payment ever .they are ruining my credit and I get declines and Im in need of credit history as fairly should be without the collection. now Experian with that referenced collection is harrasing me and causing me imminent irreparable damages and losses in retaliation against me. \n\n\n\nAll stated herein is to the current state of my belief, knowledge and understanding and subject to anything by me at any time without waiving my rights under any circumstances. \n\n\nWho can stop Experians abuse of my information In retaliation against my person? \n\n\nI have more important things to focus on and this credit bureau is truly unamerican business if it is just looking to cause trouble to consumers and in return gain profit from big businesses targetting customers with the colllection tool. I believe there is a trend here and it must be investigated by the CFPB. I hope Experian get fined millions of dollars for the government to use especially these days everyone is looking to fund public projects of their agenda. \n\n\n\nCopy of email communication with Experian from many other is as follow : Today is XX/XX/XXXX.  To Experians following reply as received today, please refer to the content of this email at its entirely .Experian full legal liability from the violations as described in my email/s sent before today and copied and forwarded below the now rejected Experians 2 reply. Following is a copy of today Experians second rejected reply then followed by my forwarded emails : Here is a copy of Experians 2nd reply today which is rejected At its entirely and Experians Violations sustained as described : Dear XXXX XXXX : Thank you for contacting us regarding the possible errors on your Experian Credit Report. I would be glad to assist you with this. I also apologize for the delayed response. \n\n\nAnytime you find errors on your credit report, you may dispute that information. If you need to dispute any of the information you have found on your credit report, you may process it online at www.experian.com/dispute or call our Customer Care team at the number below. They will be glad to assist you. \n\nTo assist you more specifically, please contact our Customer Care team atXXXX Monday through Friday XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX and Saturday andSunday XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX Pacific Time. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX. \nYour Team at Experian Ends Here. \n\nRefer to : On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : Today is XX/XX/XXXX. To Experians reply as received today, please refer to the content of this email at its entirely .Experian full legal liability from the violations as described in my email/s sent before today and copied and forwarded below the now rejected Experians reply. Following is a copy of today Experians reply then followed by my forwarded emails : Experians today : Dear XXXX XXXX : Thank you for contacting Experian XXXX. We apologize for the delayed response and understand your concern about wanting to dispute. \n\nI do see that you have placed your dispute. When completed you will receive correspondence letting you know the results are ready. You will be able to log in to your membership to see the results in your alerts section. \n\nPlease note that Experian XXXX is an online provider of credit information and is not responsible for the content in your credit report. A credit report is a snapshot of the information reported to the credit bureaus, such as Experian, at the time you request it. Experian XXXX does not have authorization to change the information in your credit report ; only the credit bureaus can do that. \n\nHave a wonderful day, XXXX XXXX. \nYour Team at Experian Copy of My emails and for attachments refer to my original email sent before today : On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote : Dear Experian Executives : Please read everything herein at its entirely along with everything I sent to Experian in regard the same exact issues or violations that Experian or its staff continue and with recklessness to put me under to suffer but I will not give up my rights under any circumstances following role of law. \n\nall stated herein is to my current state of belief knowledge and understanding and it is subject to anything or correction from error or other and at any time without prior notice and from anywhere by my person or my legal representative if any and without waiving my rights asserted by law and regulations. This is one\nwith other files and/or documents and/or recordings and/or other related evidences documenting Experians violations against my person, and all those including some of them are privileged ones and all might be used in court of law to bring justice and serve your bureaux legally and accordingly about each and each violation and all those evidences are going to be available or is already available to whom it may Concerns including but not limited to regulators and federal compliance officers with jurisdiction in the matter of the complaint about Experian dated XX/XX/XXXX to the CFPB by the complainant and in other matter included to what you might receive by a U.S Marshall but in a legal summon format at anytime without prior notice. \n\n\nThe only thing you are asked now so far and without waiving my rights is stop your aggressions retaliation And violations ... ..of my rights and immediately and permanently delete what requests in numerous times many days and now years and permanently and immediately let me along and save your time for other things productive other-word have a life away from me. \n\n<XXXX> Begin forwarded message : From : XXXX XXXX <XXXX> Date : XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST To : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Cc : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Subject : Fwd : Formal legal Complaint to and about Experians EnGaging in Consistent Violations Of the FCRA and other laws in The Commonwealth Of Virginia- Ref. XXXX XXXX vs. Experian + related documents with new funding of obstruction of investigation, forgery and invasion of privacy by Experian. \n\n<XXXX><XXXX><XXXX><XXXX><XXXX><XXXX><XXXX><XXXX><XXXX> Begin forwarded message : From : XXXX XXXX   <XXXX> Date : XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST To : XXXX Cc : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Subject : Formal legal Complaint to and about Experians EnGaging in Consistent Violations Of the FCRA and other laws in The Commonwealth Of Virginia- Ref. XXXX XXXX vs. Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX VA XXXX Formal legal Complaint to and about Experian : Dear Experian Legal Representative/Experian : Please read this at its entirely as it it is already sent to you by the CFPB and a different legal version format might be sent to you by a U.S Marshall at any time without prior notice and in a summon : Several calls and other means in contacting Experian or Experians employees in many times from spring XX/XX/XXXX, To summer XX/XX/XXXX to fall XX/XX/XXXX and so on and to dispute same inaccurate information or same unauthorized actions or same unauthorized information on my credit report that this bureau add it to my records that it maintains and supposedly also safeguards according to applicable law and regulations but it opposites the expectations and legal obligations and keeps violating my asserted rights under the applicable law as anyone reading this will conclude it is a fact happening in my case as I will detail it so please read the following at its entirely.. Facts : That contested unlawful information or contested inaccurate information was added by this bureau with recklessness despite my warnings and/or requests and/or many disputes within this bureau and/or attempted disputes as these ones were faced by either obstruction or barriers or unlawful marginalization or discrimination or retaliation by this same bureau. Facts : this bureau keep adding inappropriately with recklessness that exact same malicious information back and forth to cause damages and losses to my person .So any answer to this complaint with instructing me to go ahead and dispute directly with this credit reporting agency or credit bureau is a joke since I already tried that several times and therefore no excuse using that way of answering to this new complaint about that above issue. All legal document necessary to delete that unlawful information was provided to Experian and an example of those legal documents is a letter from my bank and Experian must comply to the FCRA and all applicable Virginia state law. Answering this complaint should be the answer to what you, Experian, did again and very specifically yesterday Saturday XX/XX/XXXX by adding previous exact same negative malicious unlawful and now retaliatory information to my credit records that you administer and you added that despite that same unlawful information was disputed before and you delete it ( see one of the legal proofs provided by Experian itself indicating that unlawful information was removed after many months of back and forth and here we again back to it in violation of the FCRA by this bureau ) and despite my many notices and actions to urge you to stop and refrain from adding that same harmful unlawful information to my credit records that you, Experian, administer and in violation of the law you retaliated against my person against and kept doing that over and over perhaps You are hoping I might not pay attention but I warned you I am monitoring my stuff*** ( see in one of the document a portion of an email available to Experian at its entirely ). This bureaus yesterday s new aggression and harassment and discrimination against me is noted, reported to whom It May Concern already and no permanent resolution honored or respected by this bureau in violation of the FCRA and other laws .By continuing dragging my person to this platform or other to complain and expose your violations to the public you are harassing me, breaking my right to peace and damaging my reputation and causing me different other types of damages and losses and by your above referenced unlawful actions toward me that all done by this bureau in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and in violation of the freedom of information act and/or privacy act and in violation of other applicable law and/or regulations. The same exact unlawful collection information were disputed many times even through the CFPB platform and this bureau declared to this bureau that same exact unlawful collection information was removed but here again yesterday XX/XX/XXXX Experian added it again, that same previously disputed and removed unlawful information, in violation of all applicable laws and/or regulations and at the top of it the FCRA. What is my demands and without waiving my rights? At least this bureau must refrain immediately from harassing me and harming me and damaging my well being and putting the above unlawful information back and forth to my credit records that this bureau maintains and administers and so they must delete that immediately and permanently and without adding it again. I warned legally by written notices to this bureau to not engage in the same wrongdoings against my person but it didnt deter this bureau. Going to court is highly likely to happen because XXXX  retaliatory and unlawful actions against me continues after filing before complaint with the CFPB about this same bureaus previous violations toward my person.. This bureaus executives or involved staff continue to refuse recklessly to look into the issue and insisted instead to maintain inaccurate harmful unlawful information recklessly in my records they kept and maintained within and by this bureau. This bureau retaliated against me by denying my rights asserted under applicable law and regulations. This bureau must comply to the law. I demand from This bureau and pursuant to the freedom of information act and/or privacy act to respond in regard to my information and privacy under this bureaus consitbous and consistent aggression and attacks and in its response also to justify to me in writing and mail their response to my current address with house number XXXX and zip code XXXX that they already have, the response to also this related questions : why should this bureau put back and forth that unlawful information in my records it administers and maintains? Why that this same exact unlawful information is shown again consistently and unlawfully and it wont stop appearing in my records despite the fact you added it as referenced above despite knowing what are you are doing is in violation of the FCRA and other? Are you going to stop and refrain from invading privacy? Are you going to comply to the law in regard to my information you misuse consistently and inappropriately?. I am so tired of coming to this platform over and over to seek protection from this credit bureaus unexplained aggressions and violations of many of rights as indicated herein and elsewhere and even my constitutional right to peace is under imminent attacks and violated by this bureau. I will not give up my rights I assure this bureau and I will defend my rights no matter what and following role of law because law exists in such situation and it needs to be applied on this bureau who dishonored the U.S laws and regulations by its unlawful actions as described in my case. This Bureaus involved staff or individuals please have a life and let me along in peace or face justice. I Exhausted all friendly initiatives to resolve this issue caused and forced unlawful to exist by this same bureau and in violation of applicable law and/or regulations. all stated herein is to my current state of belief knowledge and understanding and it is subject to anything or correction from error or other and at any time without prior notice and from anywhere by my person or my legal representative if any and without waiving my rights asserted by law and regulations. I consent and would like the CFPB to publish this description on consumerfinance.gov so that public awareness about my struggling with this bureau hopefully others will prevent it before it escalate and become almost a daily basis unnecessary externality that is harmful and it shameful for this bureau to engage in all the above referenced wrongdoings against a citizen. all stated herein is to my current state of belief knowledge and understanding and it is subject to anything or correction from error or other and at any time without prior notice and from anywhere by my person or my legal representative if any and without waiving my rights asserted by law and regulations. \n\n\nThank you, Date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2019-02-27T05:51:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"22041","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3163968","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2019-02-27T00:08:15.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Going</em> to court is highly likely to happen <em>because</em> XXXX  retaliatory and unlawful actions against me continues after filing before <em>complaint</em> with the CFPB about this same bureaus previous violations toward my person.. This bureaus executives or involved staff continue to refuse recklessly to look into the issue and insisted instead to maintain inaccurate harmful unlawful information recklessly in my records they kept and maintained within and by this bureau."]},"sort":[10.454107,"3163968"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3627121","_score":10.277534,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I began the refinance process with XXXX XXXX  at Regions Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. On that day I received a Loan Estimate that reflected an estimated property value of $ XXXX with a loan amount of $ XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the appraisal back from Regions Bank which reflected the value of my home at {$320000.00}. I knew this was an issue so I immediately called XXXX to find out how we can move forward and to get a new loan estimate/disclosure. I was finally able to reach XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and he acknowledged that there was a problem, but he would get back to me soon. After I did not hear anything from XXXX I followed up with an email to my Mortgage Processor, XXXX XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and asked if the information in the Regions Portal is correct in regards to the loan amount and PMI. ( The loan amount had been changed from $ XXXX to {$310000.00} and the PMI had also increased. ) After not hearing from XXXX or XXXX, I followed up with an email to my Mortgage Loan Coordinator, XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX asking her the same question that I asked XXXX and XXXX. Later that afternoon I received an email back from XXXX XXXX that stated XXXX would be contacting you. I proceeded to call XXXX that afternoon twice and I never received an answer. Since XXXX was not responding to me, I had my wife contact XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX answered the call and said that the loan could not go through because of the appraisal and that there were no other options. My wife asked XXXX for a new disclosure and that it was possible that we may bring the money to closing. After not receiving any estimate or disclosure from XXXX, my wife reached out to XXXX again on XX/XX/XXXX and left a voicemail. XXXX  later that afternoon sent an email with an updated estimated cost sheet. Note : The top of the estimated cost sheet says the following : Your actual rate, payment, and costs could be higher. Get an official Loan Estimate before choosing a loan. I called XXXX after receiving his estimate and asked if it was official on what I owe and XXXX responded with no. XXXX suggested seeing if my realtor could find any comparable that we could send to the appraiser to see if he could get the value increased for our home. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent XXXX  the comparable my realtor found that may boost the appraised value. On XX/XX/XXXX I received an email from XXXX that said the additional comp didnt help and would I like to proceed and bring the additional money needed to closing? I responded with I would need to know how much is needed at closing and what the actual amount of PMI would be each month. On XX/XX/XXXX I emailed XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX a new payoff for my home. Later that afternoon, I received an email from XXXX that stated, Hello XXXX, Thank you for sending the updated payoff. After running the numbers you will need approximately {$10000.00} to closing and your PMI will be roughly $ XXXX/month. If you do want to proceed I will need the 401k please. Please call me with any questions. ( I had mentioned to XXXX  I MAY want to use my 401k for the difference in loan value. ) I responded to XXXX with an email that asked if he had anything to reflect that and why is my PMI so high? I am currently paying {$77.00}??? XXXX  responded with, Im not sure about the PMI, that is what the quote came back at. I responded with the following : Again I believe until we get some concrete information on amount due at closing and what the PMI will be, a decision cant be made. For some reason, this process seems to be taking a long time. 401k has already been uploaded under the original request for documents. The down payment will come from our XXXX XXXX accounts. You have documentation on all four accounts and their balances with more than enough funds to cover the amount due. XXXX responded with the following : Please call me XXXX. Thanks. XXXX called at XXXX XXXX  and stated the following from the few notes that I took : There is a RESPA issue with your loan and several compliance issues that I am attempting to get taken care of. \nYou really dont want to come to closing with this much money due. It just doesnt make sense. \nXXXX stated that I received an incredible deal on my PMI with XXXX XXXX  and it doesnt make sense to refinance and see that go up. XXXX said there is no way my PMI should be that low and that obviously XXXX XXXX  has the ability to give really low PMI to their customers. \nPlease let me know how you would like to proceed ASAP as I have to let my Compliance Department know. If you want to proceed I ( meaning XXXX ) will need proof that you have the funds for closing. \nI stated to XXXX that I would like to talk to XXXX, but without any type of disclosure reflecting what is due and knowing what the PMI will be, I am unable to make this decision. Right after the phone call with XXXX, I send an email to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX saying the following : All-Please provide a Closing Disclosure ASAP. If this is not able to be provided, please let me know why. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX at XXXX XXXX. My first question for XXXX was that it appears overnight my loan was closed out, why did you close my loan? XXXX stated he had nothing to do with it and that was compliance. XXXX then asked if I wanted it reopened and I said yes. XXXX  stated I cant believe you want to bring this much money to the table. I responded with until I get verification of the amount due at closing and what the PMI will be, I cant make this decision and I would like it to be reopened. XXXX stated he would speak with XXXX and get it reopened and he would provide me an update early afternoon. XXXX had me send an email at XXXX XXXX  to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : XXXX-All XXXX XXXX XXXX statements for XXXX were uploaded last night for the money needed at closing. Please let me know what else is needed for this loan to close next week. \nFrom the phone conversation yesterday with XXXX and knowing our loan was closed out and we were not told, this really bothered me. This whole process has been nothing but a debacle and with the amount of pressure of XXXX  putting on that I did not want to go through with this, my gut was telling me something was wrong and/or messed up by Regions Bank XXXX I reached out to a friend of mine in the upstate who is the Compliance Officer for a bank in the upstate. He advised that I send the following to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : XXXX, I am not sure I understand what the problems are that have caused my loan to have been force closed in your system by Compliance yesterday evening. On XX/XX/XXXX you sent me a Loan Estimate showing the good faith loan closing costs estimates. Following my appraisal, which I received a copy from you on XX/XX/XXXX, we didnt speak about any issues with the loan until XX/XX/XXXX. From when Regions Bank accepted the appraisal, I did not receive an updated Loan Estimate showing any change in circumstances. I thought that 12 CFR 1026.19 required an updated Loan Estimate within 3 days, or that Regulation B would require an adverse action notice that you were denying the loan. In regards to my loan, I have received neither and I feel that the loan needs to get back on track as you have legally disclosed it to me. I know that you sent me an updated loan cost estimate on XX/XX/XXXX, which does not purport to comply with applicable law or regulation and does not meet the TRID/Know Before You Owe rules for Loan Estimates. I need this loan to close as soon as possible, with lender credits to cure for any tolerance violations as required by TRID/Know Before You Owe regulation. I am prepared to push this as much as I need to protect my rights in this situation. I am not trying to get more than what I am entitled to under applicable law and regulation, but I dont want to be mislead because of an error at Regions Bank for which I am not responsible. Thank you, XXXX & XXXX XXXX This letter was emailed to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and my wife XXXX  at XXXX XXXX  with a subject line of XXXX Letter of Intention. I received an email back from XXXX : I have reran your loan through the automated underwriting system and your file is back to Approve Eligible. I will need ( 2 ) two months of assets statements. Please send me the XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. I responded with : See attached. This would have also been uploaded in the portal back on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX responded with : Received XXXX. Thank you! After not receiving any updates I sent the following email at XXXX XXXX  : Any idea on where we stand? Any update on the compliance issues? I received the following from XXXX : Your loan is back in processing. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke to XXXX to get an update at XXXX XXXX. XXXX stated nothing new. Multiple people are out due to the virus and tomorrow being XXXX XXXX  he is not expecting to hear anything at all. XXXX will try to get back to me in the morning. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have received ZERO updates since the last email and no update as promised from XXXX. The loan does appear back in my online portal. No new disclosures have been sent since the first initial disclosure back on XX/XX/XXXX. I still have not received an explanation on the PMI. The estimated loan closing is XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, after not hearing from XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX, I sent an email to XXXX at XXXX XXXX  : XXXX, 1 ) Any update? Tomorrow it will be a week since the loan went back in for processing. 2 ) Any update on the compliance issues and how that will be handled? Thanks, XXXX XXXX XXXX replied with the following : Loan was returned from the Compliance dept last week. It is in Processing status. Need mortgage insurance certificate back. Once loan is Approved to Close, XXXX will confirm close date with you. I replied to XXXX with the following : What was the end result with Compliance? Mortgage Insurance certificate attached along with a paid receipt for the Homeowners Insurance. Any idea on when potential closing will be? After not hearing anything on my last email, I sent the following email to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX : Any update on our refinance? I never received a response on the email below XXXX XXXX Since we have not heard anything and our closing has already gone past the XX/XX/XXXX projected date, I had my wife, XXXX, call XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to find out what was going on. XXXX called and it went straight to voicemail. XXXX left him a voicemail to please call her back. XXXX immediately called XXXX back and stated he thinks he has everything that is needed, but they are very short staffed at the moment. XXXX stated he would check to see that the underwriter and processor has everything that they need. XXXX stated the goal is to close by the end of the month. XXXX asked for a disclosure statement again since we still have not received one. XXXX stated he would call back with an update and that right now it is taking two business days to get any response back from underwriting. The Initial Closing Disclosure was emailed by Regions that same afternoon at XXXX XXXX. We never received a phone call or any follow up from XXXX. I spoke to XXXX on the phone at XXXXXXXX  XXXX   after I had received the Initial Closing Disclosure. I asked XXXX why I am agreeing to the Initial Closing Disclosure when it does not match my Loan Estimate. The Initial Closing Disclosure has a section where it states what the Loan Estimate stated versus what the Initial Closing Disclosure states. XXXX became very agitated with me on the phone and stated he could try to find the disclosure but that I knew that it was going to be more due to my appraisal. I asked if he had a copy of it as this is something that I have not seen. XXXX stated that it is somewhere. I then asked XXXX if this was compliant or against Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX. XXXX then accused me that I was going after him because my appraisal came in less than what was projected and that I simply wanted Regions to pay for the difference and that was not going to happen. XXXX then continued by yelling three times, Are you threatening me? I stated to XXXX that no, I am not threatening him, I am just trying to understand why I was never given a different loan estimate that reflected what was shown on the Initial Closing Disclosure and I am trying to figure out what is going on. XXXX made the suggestion that he requests that I withdraw the loan or that he would cancel the loan immediately. I stated I have no interest in the loan being cancelled as this is a great rate and would put my family in a better financial position. So far this loan is back on track with closing expected on XX/XX/XXXX. I still dont understand why a new loan estimate was never given to me by Regions Bank. Per XXXX, a different loan estimate exists from the one that I originally received, but for some reason I am not privy to the new loan estimate. The questions that I have on why my PMI is higher than what my previous loan have still not been answered. \nI have typed out a timeline of events that will take you from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX in regards to the number of emails and conversations that I had with the representatives of Regions Bank. We first asked for a new estimate/disclosure on XX/XX/XXXX and it has taken until XX/XX/XXXX to receive anything from Regions Bank and that was in the form of an Initial Closing Disclosure. \nI went to closing on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with our closing attorney, XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX about the issues that we were having with the loan. XXXX was extremely concerned about the way my wife and I were treated through the process and he suggested we proceed with the refinance at this time with the rate being so low. For the refinance to proceed and Regions Bank to fund the refinance, we made the decision to sign all documents saying that our loan estimate matches our closing statement even though we all knew this was false. My fear again was XXXX had already tried twice to cancel this loan and if we did not sign the document, my thought was that XXXX and Regions Bank would not fund our refinance. XXXX also suggested that once the loan is closed and funded, we should move forward with submitting a complaint with South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-04-28T19:49:14.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"29072","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3627121","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-04-28T19:14:50.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX also suggested that once the loan is closed and funded, we should move <em>forward</em> with <em>submitting</em> a <em>complaint</em> with South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."]},"sort":[10.277534,"3627121"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5776340","_score":9.978332,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I previously submitted claim number XXXX which was closed upon receiving response from Oceanside mortgage XXXX I do not feel the response provided is adequate, and this is a new complaint to provide new updated information. \n\nI was contacted by XXXX about my claim and provided with a direct number. This number she did not answer when I called, but when I left a voicemail she would reach out in XXXX hours. During our initial call, I laid out exactly what had happened, how I have been damaged by their negligence, and how I expected this to be resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. XXXX has proven to be another tool Oceanside has deployed in an attempt to manipulate the situation, violate laws and steal from me as a consumer. \n\nMortgage Payoff and Loss Draft Insurance Checks To my knowledge, the summary of the calls and information provided is accurate, albeit missing many of the calls I made. Oceanside confirmed receipt of the money in question to pay off my loan in full XX/XX/XXXX. This is the date the payoff should have been processed for. I do not dispute the fact the company has up to 30 days to provide a complete payoff statement to XXXX XXXX, per applicable law they should have stopped charging fees as of this day since this was when they received all monies for the loan along with my letter of intent to use my funds for such purpose. \n\nThere is a reference to a call made XX/XX/XXXX. I was advised they would have the payoff processed by XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX would have been 10 business days since their receipt of funds XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX would have put their processing of the funds at 15 days, beyond the expectation previously set by the agents I spoke with. The applicable regulations governing these statements are found 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( i ) https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1026/36/ # c On XX/XX/XXXX, Oceanside confirms their negligence in stating the work order was not opened timely to process the pay off on the intended date. At this point, Oceanside had been in receipt of my funds for the past 26 calendar days. That is right, 26 calendar days. Per applicable law, Oceanside should have applied the funds and recorded with XXXX XXXX a form stating my loan was paid in full by 30 days, XX/XX/XXXX ( please see A.R.S. 33-707 Acknoledgement of satisfaction ; recording and A.R.S. Liability for failure to acknowledge satisfaction ). \n\nIn this same paragraph, Oceanside claims to have sent me a check in the amount of {$37000.00}. This is a lie. The check I received, as evidence by the attached deposited check from Oceanside, was received in the amount of {$35000.00}, a difference of {$2000.00}. Normally, I would attribute this to some kind of typo. But this amount is listed multiple times in this paragraph. As a response to a complaint filed with a government agency, I would hope Oceanside would take great caution in ensuring all information provided is accurate and true, especially with regard to numbers they themselves are providing. However, this is just another representation of the service and lies used by Oceanside in an attempt to defraud me of money. As I write this response, XX/XX/XXXX, I have not received a new check, mentioned in the Interest reimbursed paragraph, and can not confirm the amount of the supposed XXXX check or receipt. \n\nInterest reimbursed Reading this section gave me goose bumps. I literally laughed out loud because of how asinine Oceansides justification of funds is. The investor of the loan does not allow a payoff to be backdated. I completely understand mortgages as a business transactions, but when a firm is in violation of multiple federal and state laws/regulations, I would hope the investors would want to operate legally. However, this statement is a reflection of how it is more important for Oceanside and their investors to make money than be in compliance with the applicable federal and state law. \n\nThe next section will detail a conversation I had with XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. During this conversation, and subsequent email, I advised the interest payment they were willing to provide was incorrect as well. They are basing this interest payment between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, a period where interest should have stopped accruing because they already received all funds for payoff. Beyond this, I had made my XXXX payment already XX/XX/XXXX. So this interest they were so nicely providing back, was actually a double-bill that should have been refunded anyways. This is not an acceptable resolution to this mess Oceanside has made me endure. \n\nInaccurate payoff statements During our conversation XX/XX/XXXX, I advised XXXX of the discrepancies of the payoff statements. I was going to lunch and not in front of my computer at the moment, which I told XXXX. She advised when I get back to send me an email and include the statements I received. When I returned to work, I proceeded to type out an email titled Payoff Letter discrepancy to XXXX ( the email she requested I send it to ). I expressed concerns of her receiving this email as I was previously provided it in relation to another agent assigned to my case, but she told me not to worry and that all communications would be forwarded to her. I have attached the email showing not only what I typed out, but also the attachments sent to XXXX, also attached. \n\nI also want to note, that the conversation I had with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX was held in front of my coworker XXXX, whom I was attending lunch with, as witness. \n\nDuring the phone conversation XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX and I discussed my frustration with this process. In the next paragraph I will go into detail with regard to the section in Oceansides response labeled Compensation for damages. However, I want to add here that on XX/XX/XXXX, I advised that at the time I submitted the complaint, my acceptable resolution was to receive the interest payment back. However, when we spoke XX/XX/XXXX, my damages incurred are now more than just an interest payment, which I will detail in the next section. \n\nCompensation for damages I am including all applicable receipts and documentation I have to support my request for compensation for damages. At this point, I am also updated my request for compensation for applicable damage to reflect my actual damages incurred to date, along with compensatory damages for my time spent and punitive damages as a measure this will not happen to anyone else. \n\n1. I am seeking a refund as outlined in my email sent with regard to the payoff statement in the amount of {$1000.00}. The details are outlined in the attached email, and this is the amount owed that was overcharged with relation to my payoff being processed late.\n\n2. I request the additional amount I had to pay in closing due to your negligence and late processing ( by your own admission ) in the amount of {$2600.00}. \n3. My mortgage was originally supposed to close XX/XX/XXXX. Since that did not happen, I had not choice but to remain in my current rental for at least another month. I am requesting this be reimbursed as I was forced into staying due to the negligence and late processing by Oceanside. The amount of the rent sent is {$1500.00}. \n4. If the amount I should have received back from escrow was in fact the amount listed in the letter, I am requesting the {$2000.00} be sent to me as well Final thoughts In XX/XX/XXXX I lost my home. In XX/XX/XXXX, just over a year later, I have been put through tremendous mistreatment of Oceanside mortgage. They have violated laws and regulations, and have done so at the hands of numerous people in their organization. This isnt a failure by XXXX individual, this is an absolute collapse of Oceansides system that ultimately resulted in my rights and consumer protections being disregarded. I pray that if there is any good that comes from this situation, it is that I am made whole and this is a learning experience for Oceanside to prevent this from happening to anyone else. \n\nThroughout this experience, the agents of Oceanside has not provided adequate servicing of my mortgage. Their negligence and failure to provide answers and resolution have cost me time, money, energy, and ultimately caused undue emotional distress. This was not a case of an agent and I disagreeing on a simple manner, this is Oceanside putting aside the law in an attempt to defraud me. In the assignment of a case agent to resolve this manner, Oceanside has tried to paint the picture brighter by not doing thorough research, having open communication with me ( they only spoke to me twice since assigning a case agent, and XXXX of those times was in response to me calling them ). I have been a victim of Oceanside. Oceanside has stolen money from me, and has not done enough to make it right. They have violated several laws and regulations put in place to HELP PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE ME. I am insulted that Oceanside feels less than {$500.00} is enough to make me whole when I have explained specific damages incurred by them. \n\nThis process has been drawn out and, to be honest, I am tired. I should not have to fight to have Oceanside follow laws to accept my payment on time. I should not have to call in many times for updates on what they are doing. I should not be told to just keep waiting and be patient because not XXXX person has answers, or the team that does have answers is unavailable by phone even to them. I should not have to wait 28 days to receive money back from escrow when the law states 20. I still do not see anything filed with XXXX XXXX saying my mortgage has been paid in full, albeit I did receive a letter saying this sent to me and me only. I should not be forced to come out of my own pocket to pay more due to the negligence of Oceanside. \n\nAt this point, I pray this can be resolved once and for all in a way that makes me whole, and is fair. In the following of this document specifically I have included most of the laws and regulations Oceanside is in violation of not following for quick referencing. This is not a comprehensive list, as I only included the more major ones they violated, and not every specific one as this would make this document too large for me to type and review in a timely manner. \n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-15T21:33:27.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"851XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5776340","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OCEANSIDE MORTGAGE COMPANY","date_received":"2022-07-15T21:25:55.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In the next paragraph I will <em>go</em> into detail with regard to the section in Oceansides response labeled Compensation for damages. However, I want to add here that on XX/XX/XXXX, I advised that at the time I <em>submitted</em> the <em>complaint</em>, my acceptable resolution was to receive the interest payment back. However, when we spoke XX/XX/XXXX, my damages incurred are now more than just an interest payment, which I will detail in the next section."]},"sort":[9.978332,"5776340"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7771589","_score":9.923348,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I sent a copy of the following report via certified mail. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX SSN : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX To whom it may concern : I am also requesting that you provide me with a copy of my credit report so that I can verify its accuracy.I have a right to contest any information on my credit report that I believe is inaccurate. I am contesting any information on my credit report that I believe is not accurate. The data included in this document must be documented and validated before it can go onto the actual reports! The allegations of delinquency and derogatoriness are without evidence, so I refuse to accept them as true. Let me take a moment to inform you that the reportability of this allegation has been challenged. It doesn't meet federal or state requirements for reporting, so please make sure it's as accurate and thorough in its entirety before submitting anything! The law requires that you make sure all of your claims are accurate and reported in the correct format. This is a great way to ensure compliance with regulations, so we hope this reminder helps! All of our information must be reported accurately and accordance with Metro 2 regulations or else you could face fines! Again! Please take this seriously. I am writing to remind you that all your claims need accurate reporting in order for them be reported correctly, which is required by law ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 standards.For any account that is alleged to be delinquent or derogatory, I would like evidence showing why you and the company who provided the data to you consider the financial state as such. The law requires that I have proof of a permissible purpose for any inquiry within my report. Therefore, Im requesting that you verify permissible purpose was provided for each account and inquiry. You have 30 days to investigate this matter and confirm that it is being reported correctly or remove any errors from the report. I am looking forward to receiving your proof of action and my updated credit report.\n\nBelow is a summary of the data in which I am challenging : Summary of Accounts being challenged in list form -XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Summary of Inquiries being challenged in list form XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX Personal Information for Experian Can you please delete any names in your system that don't match mine? I want to make sure the database has accurate information about me, so it will help with future transactions if you can get rid of any names in your system that don't match XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nCURRENT ADDRESS : XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Your company 's records must be up-to date. If you have any address listed in your system that does not match my address as its listed in this letter to you, please delete them immediately so you can make sure your database has accurate information about Me! My only address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX 7 Year History - Account Description : Account Status : Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX Individual Closed {$2900.00} XXXX Account # : Experian XXXX CollectionOrChargeOff Revolving -- UNPAID BALANCE REPORTED AS A LOSS BY XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Type : Balance Owed : XXXX XXXX Closed Date : Credit Limit : Creditor Remarks : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Rating : XXXX XXXX Page XXXX of XXXX Date Reported : - XXXX Dispute Status : XXXX XXXX Last Payment : XXXX -- Past Due Amount : XXXX -- Term Length : XXXX -- Date Opened : XXXX XXXX -- XXXX -- CollectionOrChargeOff ChargeAccount Creditor Type : - DepartmentAndMailOrder XXXX Date of Last Activity : XXXX High Balance : XXXX The information above was never confirmed to be in compliance with proper reporting standards. The information is deficient and I demand that it be removed immediately. \nAlso, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. \nViewing Account Type ( XXXX ) demonstrating Revolving. You are in serious trouble if you can't provide proof that this account has been compliant with all current regulations! I need evidence to back up your claims. Show me how exactly does it meet these requirements? \nI want to bring to your attention Date Opened ( XXXX ) reporting XXXX. I believe that this account is not compliant with the standards and its reporting ability. As you know, compliance with regulatory mandates such as those set out by federal or state governments are essential for accurate credit card transactions? Prove to me how your information was able meet these high expectations by providing documents which prove otherwise!? \nWhen I scrutinized Account Rating ( XXXX ) presenting CollectionOrChargeOff I challenge the accuracy of this account on my credit report. You know that I am a hard-working individual, but there are some things on it which do not reflect what's true for me and this is why your company has received so many complaints from customers who had issues with their reports being accurate or complete enough as they claim to be able provide such services if needed! How can I trust what's in my credit report? It doesn't look like you're following the required standards. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Year History Account Description : Account Status : Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX Individual Closed {$0.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Experian XXXX XXXX -- UNPAID BALANCE REPORTED AS A LOSS BY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account # : Payment Amount : XXXX Payment Frequency : XXXX -- Payment Status : XXXX : XXXX Loan Type : XXXX Account Rating : XXXX CollectionOrChargeOff Account Type : XXXX Revolving XXXX Balance Owed : Closed Date : XXXX XXXX Credit Limit : Creditor Remarks : XXXX XXXX Creditor Type : Date Reported : Date Opened : - XXXX - Date XXXX XXXX Activity : XXXX Last Verified : XXXX Dispute Status : XXXX XXXX Last Payment : XXXX -- Past Due Amount : XXXX -- Payment Frequency : XXXX -- Term Length : XXXX -- High Balance : -- XXXX {$0.00} XXXX XXXX Last Verified : XXXX Payment Amount : XXXX Payment Status : XXXX CollectionOrChargeOff XXXX XXXX XXXX Loan Type : The information above has not been verified to meet reporting standards. The data provided is not complete, accurate, or up-to-date, and I demand that it be corrected. \n\nAlso, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. \nI was looking at Date Reported ( - ) expressing XXXX The information on this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the XXXX. I would like you to review it again and prove me wrong, so that my account can be 100 % accurate! \nI want to bring to your attention Creditor Type ( - ) reporting Banking The data for this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of the XXXX. I would like you to review the account again and prove to me that everything is true, accurate, consistent, complete, timely, verified and compliant with all requirements and standards. If you can not adhere to compliance standards and prove your adherence to compliance standards please remove this account from my profile immediately! \nUpon inspecting XXXX exhibiting XXXX. I am writing to ask for your help in reviewing this account. The data appears inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the XXXX, so I would like you to review it again and make sure everything is true/ accurate about what's going on here before accepting its accuracy as fact! If there are any discrepancies when checking out these claims please remove me from consideration immediately because nothing can be worth doing at less than 100 % Lets take a look at Loan Type reporting CreditCard. The data reported doesn't meet the required standards. It could be inaccurate because it deviates from what's allowed, so make sure all fields are correct before adding anything to my credit report XXXX - XXXX 7 Year History - Account Description : Experian XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX Individual {$0.00} DepartmentAndMailOrder Account # : Experian XXXX CollectionOrChargeOff Revolving -- ACCOUNT LEGALLY PAID IN FULL FOR LESS THAN FULL BALANCE XXXX XXXX Account Status : XXXX XXXX Account Type : Balance Owed : XXXX XXXX Closed Date : - Date Opened : Closed XXXX Account Rating : XXXX Credit Limit : XXXX XXXX Creditor Type : XXXX Creditor Remarks : XXXX Date Reported : - XXXX XXXX of Last Activity : XXXX Dispute Status : XXXX XXXX Last Payment : XXXX -- Past Due Amount : XXXX -- Payment Frequency : XXXX -- Term Length : XXXX -- High Balance : -- XXXX {$0.00} CollectionOrChargeOff ChargeAccount TradelineHashComplex : XXXX Loan Type : It's very important that your company complies with all applicable consumer laws and reporting standards. I am disappointed that you have failed to provide any documentation to prove compliance. If this report is not deleted immediately, legal action will be taken against your company. \n\nAlso, see the image above for XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. \nWhen I scrutinized Creditor Remarks ( XXXX ) presenting ACCOUNT LEGALLY PAID IN FULL FOR LESS THAN FULL BALANCE. Compliance with regulatory requirements is essential for accurate credit reporting! Prove to me that your information for this account has been fully vetted and meets all the standards of federal law, including but not limited XXXX XXXX standards. I need you show proof or explain how this account is compliant Upon inspecting XXXX exhibiting XXXX. The federal and state regulations are a necessary component in ensuring that your company is run responsibly. I can't imagine how we would operate if they were not obeyed! So, let 's take this opportunity for you to show me proof of your adherence to applicable compliance standards for this particular account.\n\nBring to your attention Creditor Type ( - ) reporting DepartmentAndMailOrder I think this account is inaccurate because it doesn't follow the required standards. I challenge you to prove that this account and your reporting practices and process are perfect and complete. That includes following the Credit Reporting Industry 's Metro 2 Format standards. If you can't do that, then clearly my credit report and what youre reporting for is not accurate.\n\nViewing Account Description demonstrating Individual. You are deficient in your ability to report accurately if you can not prove compliance with federal and state regulations! I am looking for evidence that this account is compliant. Show me how exactly it meets all the requirements of current regulation?\n\nUpon inspecting Loan Type exhibiting ChargeAccount. The data you reported doesn't meet the requirements! It's not accurate because it deviates from what is required. As I know, You must always report all fields in compliance with Metro 2 standards and there can be no deviations from these rules so please correct this account right away before I am financially impacted by this incomplete, unverified and inaccurate information When I scrutinized Date Reported ( - ) presenting XXXX This account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of XXXX. I would like you to review this report again and PROVE that everything is true, accurate ( i.e., dates ), compliant with all requirements & comply immediately if unable! \nXXXX XXXX  XXXX 7 Year History - Account Description : Account Status : Experian XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX : XXXX Individual Closed {$0.00} Account # : Experian XXXX CollectionOrChargeOff Revolving -- XXXX Account Type : Balance Owed : XXXX XXXX Closed Date : XXXX Last Verified : XXXX Payment Amount : XXXX Payment Status : XXXX XXXX Account Rating : XXXX XXXX Credit Limit : XXXX XXXX Creditor Type : - DepartmentAndMailOrder Date Reported : - XXXX Last Payment : XXXX -- Past Due Amount : XXXX XXXX XXXX Opened : Creditor Remarks : XXXX ACCOUNT LEGALLY PAID IN FULL FOR LESS THAN FULL BALANCE XXXX XXXX -- Last Verified : XXXX XXXX Payment Amount : XXXX {$0.00} XXXX Date of Last Activity : XXXX Dispute Status : XXXX XXXX High Balance : XXXX Payment Frequency : XXXX Term Length : XXXX -- XXXX : Loan Type : Payment Status : -- XXXX CollectionOrChargeOff XXXX The inaccurate information above was never verified to be in line with official reporting standards. The information above was never confirmed to be accurate, complete, timely, or valid. You must provide proof of compliance with reporting standards and applicable consumer laws. The information above is insufficient. I demand that inaccurate, incomplete, and unverified information be removed immediately! \n\nAlso, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. \nI was looking at Account Rating ( XXXX ) expressing CollectionOrChargeOff. This is a formal complaint about the content of my report. It has come to my attention that you failed in following standard procedures for accuracy, and as such I question its validity if not fixed immediately.\n\nUpon inspecting Credit Limit ( XXXX ) exhibiting XXXX. I am disappointed to find that the data you reported does not meet our standards. It is inaccurate because it deviates from what's required by Metro 2 rules and there can never be any deviations from these requirements so please correct this account right away before my finances are impacted by incomplete or unverified information. \nLets examine Account # ( XXXX ) showing XXXX Compliance with Metro 2 standards is paramount to ensure accurate data reporting. There can be NO deviation from these mandatorily required fields, or it would compromise the integrity of all reported information. When reviewing this account, apparent inaccuracies call into question the entire account! \nLets take a look at Loan Type reporting ChargeAccount. There may be a problem with the data reported because it doesn't meet the required standards. The data may not be accurate because it deviates from what is required. As you know You must report all Data fields in compliance with the Metro 2 standards. There can be no deviation from these requirements. \nUpon inspecting Creditor Type ( - ) exhibiting XXXX. There are certain things I can not live without. XXXX of those necessities is compliance with federal and state regulations! So, how did you manage to comply? Prove your compliance by showing me some proof! \nViewing XXXX demonstrating XXXX. I am writing to inform you that the data for this account appears inconsistent or inaccurate with established reporting standards. I would like to request a review of your information and prove its accuracy, completeness & timeliness before adding it onto my profile. I have looked over some aspects about CDIA requirements in order to make sure there are no discrepancies when reviewing accounts such as these ; please provide me more details on what is relevant so we can ensure 100 % compliance across all areas! \nInquiries XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Experian ChargeAccount I received a copy of my credit report and was shocked to find an alleged hard inquiry on it. I don't know why this was reported, as you know this is not something that should have been reported. The Fair Credit Reporting Act states that no one may access your information without permission from you first. Please provide proof of permissible purpose by furnishing to me documentation of the credit application with proof of signature showing that I indeed applied for credit with this company. Otherwise, delete the alleged inquiries immediately. \nYours Truly According to the law, you and data furnishers must certify all aspects of required FCRA/Metro 2 compliance. This must be done in a truthful, correct manner that is complete as well timely so it does not violate my consumer rights or civil freedoms! \nXXXX XXXX Please send your written response to my address of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX I am aware that you have been sending out form letters in response to many of the disputes and challenges that consumers have submitted, regardless of the specific information that they have provided. This is illegal, as each dispute and challenge must be addressed individually and on its own merits.My letters were created using software that is available to everyone. If you don't process my letters, you are violating 15 U.S. Code 5 1681i. Keep in mind, you are not allowed to delay processing letters from consumers based on the assumption that help from a third party may be available. This is not a legal exception.I am the author of any letters you receive with my name on them. Either I or my advisors wrote them with my full knowledge and consent. I am aware that there is no law that says you need to provide a Power of Attorney in order to delay processing letters from a consumer.If you do not process my letters in a timely manner, I will consider it to be an intentional disregard of my rights as a consumer. I will then contact my lawyer to take legal action.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-29T03:53:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7771589","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-10-29T03:30:36.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am looking <em>forward</em> to receiving your proof of action and my updated credit report."]},"sort":[9.923348,"7771589"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4355955","_score":9.76676,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"In XXXX of XXXX I applied to Intercontinental Capital Group ( ICG ) for 5 mortgage refinance loans for 5 separate properties. I paid out-of-pocket for appraisals on all 5 properties. ICG ultimately closed 3 of the 5 loans, but they, to this day, have not rendered a decision on the last 2. I have emailed multiple people over the course of the last several weeks and no one will respond to me. \n\nI dont know the exact dates of application but the known milestone dates of the unclosed loans are : Property A : Locked : XX/XX/XXXX Appraisal : received from lender XX/XX/XXXX Property B : Locked : XX/XX/XXXX Appraisal : received from lender XX/XX/XXXX I was receiving communication with various ICG individuals ( mainly the processor ) about my files until about XXXX Everything seemed slow, but progressing. I thought it was odd that it was taking so long to close the loans, but rates were low and lenders were inundated with refinance requests, so it was fine. I could be patient as long as we were working toward the finish line. Then something went off the rails and they have become completely unresponsive. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - Processing supervisor emails that hes working on Property B ( this was an appraisal issue that I was aware of, but asking them to help resolve ). Supervisor pledged to update in \" a couple of days XX/XX/XXXX - I emailed processing supervisor for an update on Property B because update promised on XX/XX/XXXX ( two weeks prior ) never came. Supervisor never replied to this XX/XX/XXXX inquiry XX/XX/XXXX I emailed processor asking how close we were to closing Property A. ( All documentation had been submitted and the appraisal was received 2-months earlier. ) Processor replied same-day saying Property A file was now being handled by management. No other details given. I replied immediately and asked why. They had already closed three other loans for us ( all locked on the same day, XX/XX/XXXX ) and there were no credit issues brought up for those loans. Property A appraisal came in at value. What is the problem? Process replied again, same-day, saying the underwriter is being difficult. This was the last time I heard from the processor XX/XX/XXXX I emailed processing supervisor AGAIN for an update on Property B, noting that my last inquiry had gone unanswered. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - Processing manager replied that he should have an answer shortly. This was the last time I heard from him XX/XX/XXXX - I emailed the manager again. I said its been 2 full weeks since he said hed have an answer shortly. I asked for an update on both Property A and Property B. I received no response to this email XX/XX/XXXX - I emailed manager AGAIN. Please reply with an update. This is unacceptable. My files are completely stalled and all my attempts at clarification and communication are being completely ignored. At this point I really just need to know if youre going to close the [ Property A ] loan or not. I received no response to this email XX/XX/XXXX - I emailed the processor to ask the specific date Property A had gone to the underwriter ( I knew it was in the hands of the underwriter on or before XX/XX/XXXX per her earlier email but wanted the exact date. ) I received no reply to this email XX/XX/XXXX - After my last XXXX consecutive attempts at getting an update failed, I emailed a formal complaint to XXXX customer experience group regarding lack of underwriting decision AND lack of response. I requested the complaint be forwarded to ICG Compliance department because I am aware of regulation B and that they are required to render a decision on my files. Instead, my files and my attempts at figuring out what is happening were both being ignored. I requested in my complaint a written response to the complaint and resolution within two weeks XX/XX/XXXX - I received a telephone call from who I believe is the branch manager. I was unable to take the call at the time but the individual left a message with his name and phone number XX/XX/XXXX - I returned the branch managers call, but with the time zone difference it was after hours in his time zone. I left message requesting a return call. He did not call back again XX/XX/XXXX - I called the branch manager a second time, again after hours with the time difference. Left a message that I was out of patience. The last communication Id had about my files had been more than 30 days ago and all my recent attempts at making contact had been ignored. I included specific times I could be reached the next day for a call back. He did not call me back the next day. Or the next. Or the next To recap : the last reply from the processor was 3/18. The last email received from the processing manager was XX/XX/XXXX. I received no written response to my customer experience complaint, and the branch manager never made phone contact after one single attempt This is both unacceptable from a customer service perspective, and from a regulatory perspective. I am still waiting for a loan approval, decline, or counteroffer for both of these loans. \n\nAny assistance in resolving these matters would be greatly appreciated. \n\n\n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-06T16:57:46.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"95630","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4355955","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL GROUP","date_received":"2021-05-06T16:49:04.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I requested the <em>complaint</em> be <em>forwarded</em> to ICG <em>Compliance</em> department <em>because</em> I am aware of <em>regulation</em> B and that they are required to render a decision on my files. Instead, my files and my attempts at figuring out what is happening were both being ignored. I requested in my <em>complaint</em> a written response to the <em>complaint</em> and resolution within two weeks XX/XX/XXXX - I received a telephone call from who I believe is the branch manager."]},"sort":[9.76676,"4355955"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3974288","_score":9.570227,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is providing accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. \n\nXXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. \n\nXXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XX/XX/XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgement of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSo, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. \n\nFor example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims WF is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, WF is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIf this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. \n\nThe somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX XXXX response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. \n\nThese practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. \n\nAt the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAny reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date WF has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that WF will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. \n\nOn one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses WF compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-25T09:23:16.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3974288","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-11-25T01:10:19.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving <em>forward</em>. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-<em>compliance</em> I pointed out."]},"sort":[9.570227,"3974288"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3974282","_score":9.570227,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is providing accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. \n\nXXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. \n\nXXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgement of the due date of the XXXX-XXXX  ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSo, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. \n\nFor example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and Equifax. This is in obvious contradiction to what XXXX XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIf this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. \n\nThe somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of XXXX and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. \n\nThese practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. \n\nAt the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XX/XX/XXXX, Exquifax, and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAny reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. \n\nOn one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, XXXX XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX XXXX the CFPB XXXX enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-25T09:23:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3974282","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2020-11-25T04:23:20.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX then <em>goes</em> on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out <em>complaint</em> XXXX."]},"sort":[9.570227,"3974282"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3622300","_score":9.449509,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"This is my second consumer complaint to American Express. I will continue to submit these until the problem is resolved. This was the previous complaint : I received the American Express Platinum credit card on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I had the intent to use this card under the assumption that the {$550.00} annual fee for this card would be waived under the Military Lending Act, as I have been on XXXX XXXX military for the last 2.5 years. Every member of my unit who applied for this card had the annual fee waived within a week or two ( I can provide references for that if needed ), and so I went forward and eventually received the card. Around the time the annual fee was charged, roughly XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, I made an inquiry over the phone with American Express to apply for military benefits to have this fee waived. I thought this was strange because when applying for the card, the application asks for your source of income, and I had chosen the military option, provided a street address on the military base I am on, etc. The inquiry came back nearly a month later to tell me that I am ineligible for AMEXs SCRA ( Service Civil Relief Act ) benefits. I submitted another inquiry to make sure that wasnt a mistake. The next inquiry came back with the same results, roughly another month later ( each inquiry was made over the phone, while I tried to explain to each rep. that I was in the military and just wanted to see if I could be credited back the annual fee ). After the 2nd inquiry came back, I spoke on the phone with a specialist from AMEX who allowed me to reopen that inquiry and submit supporting documents, such as my XXXX XXXX orders from my military duty station, which shows my swearing in date ( date I began XXXX XXXX service ) as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. When that inquiry also came back as denied on XXXX XXXX, I spoke to another specialist, who then told me that their annual fee on the Platinum card is done through the Military Lending Act and in XXXX is determined upon applying for the card. The specialist resubmitted a new dispute inquiry with a comment emphasizing that I was seeking a benefit under the Military Lending Act, rather than the SCRA. This morning, the inquiry was denied again. I have spoken to at least 8 different representatives from American Express to explain this situation and 0 have been able to help. I had to pay this annual fee in order to avoid any late fees. The only reason I applied for this credit card is because of its wonderful benefits and that military members do not pay the annual fee. I am in the military. I make a guaranteed income, but this was a fairly large amount of money for me, and I feel as if there is no one else that can help. American Express customer service has been useless. Please help. \n\nI received a response from American Expresss customer service team stating that my account is ineligible for MLA benefits as you are not considered a covered borrower until you have graduated from the XXXX. \n\nI do not know one XXXX  at the XXXX XXXX XXXX that has this credit card and has not had the annual fee waived under the MLA. I am not doubting that others have not had it waived, but the mere fact that I can refer to at least 10 others who have received the MLA benefits, who are also XXXX, shows that there is some sort of inconsistency to your policy. You can not give some XXXX   benefits, and refuse to consider others eligible. \nAs you know, my inquiries to AMEX were for the SCRA. I learned later from a representative that this eligibility is for members who are called to XXXX XXXX after their application has been approved. The representative told me that the annual fee is actually waived under the MLA, where eligibility is determined at the time of the application for the credit card. \nAccording to the Military Lending Act in the FDIC, Covered members of the armed forces include the XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX currently serving XXXX XXXX pursuant to title 10, title 14, or title 32 of the U.S Code under a call or order that does not specify a period of 30 days or fewer, or such a member serving on XXXX XXXX and XXXX duty as that term is defined in 10 U.S.C 101 ( d ) ( 6 ). \nTitle 10, according to U.S. Code, defines XXXX XXXX as such on page 19, The term XXXX XXXX means XXXX XXXX  in the XXXX  military service of the United States. Such term includes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. These schools include the 3 major service academies to include, the United States XXXX XXXX, United States XXXX XXXX, and the United States XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nI am aware that MLA eligibility is determined upon the application for a credit account with American Express. This eligibility is determined directly from the DoDs database by American Express, but as you likely did not know, XXXX  at approved military academies, although considered XXXX XXXX under Title 10,  do not appear in the DoD database. The rank XXXX is specific to students at their respective academies, and is a separate part of the DoD. So if you search a XXXX name in the DoD database without knowing they go to a military academy, that would make them ineligible for MLA benefits, such as waiving the Platinum cards annual fee. However, as shown above, cadets at the 3 major service academies are considered XXXX XXXX under Title 10, deeming them eligible for MLA benefits. No database can help you understand that, so I did the research for you. Please reconsider this inquiry. \n\nHere are the supporting documents for your own research if desired : https :   //www.fdic.gov/regulations/compliance/manual/5/v-13.1.pdf https : //www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/pdf/USCODE-2011-title10.pdf","date_sent_to_company":"2020-04-24T23:28:06.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3622300","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2020-04-24T22:34:11.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Here are the supporting documents for your own research if desired : https :   //www.fdic.gov/<em>regulations</em>/<em>compliance</em>/manual/5/v-13.1.pdf https : //www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/pdf/USCODE-2011-title10.pdf"]},"sort":[9.449509,"3622300"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8106774","_score":9.277069,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To whom it may concern : I am contesting any information on my credit report that is not true or documented. This includes any claims that have not been proven to be correct. I am doing this in accordance with the FCRA and the accepted STANDARD of metro 2 data field reporting.I can not recognize or accept the allegation of delinquency and derogatoriness without factual document proof. I challenge the reportability of these allegations because they are unsubstantiated. According to federal and state law, you must report any allegation accurately and completely.It is wrong to report any claims that you know or should know are against the law or regulations. I'm writing to inform you that you need to make sure all your claims are factual and reported correctly. This is required by the Metro 2 reporting standard. I request that you provide physical verifiable evidence to support the existence of the account and evidence that the account was used for a permissible purpose. I am giving you 30 days to investigate this issue and determine whether it is still being reported accurately and in compliance with the law. If it is not, I want it removed from the report.I authorize you to mail me physical documentation of your actions and my updated credit report.The following allegations appear to be inaccurate and require verification before they can be considered accurate. Please report each allegation fully and accurately, ensuring that all information is verified as correct or REMOVE them from my report. Below is a summary of the data in which I am challenging : Summary of Accounts being challenged in list form XXXX ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Summary of Inquiries being challenged in list form XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Personal Information for TransUnion NAME : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX- I would appreciate it if you could take care of any names that may be listed incorrectly in your database. My actual name is XXXX XXXX if you have anything in your system that is different from what I have just mentioned, please delete them immediately. CURRENT ADDRESS : XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - My address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX and if you have any listings with different address ( s ), please delete them immediately so the information you have on file for me is accurate. XXXX - XXXX The information above was never proven to meet compliance reporting standards. The information was never verified to be accurate or complete. I demand that this information be deleted immediately! Also, see the image above for XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. When I scrutinized Credit Limit ( XXXX ) presenting {$10000.00}. The only thing that's more important than compliance is accuracy! Prove to me your information for this account has been fully vetted and meets all of federal law. I need you show proof or explain how it complies with Metro 2 standards Upon inspecting Term Length ( XXXX ) exhibiting -. I am disappointed to find that the data you reported does not meet our standards. It is inaccurate because it deviates from what's required by Metro 2 rules and there can never be any deviations from these requirements so please correct this account right away before my finances are impacted by incomplete or unverified information. Lets examine Payment Amount ( XXXX ) showing {$0.00} The proof is in the pudding. I challenge you to show that your process for reporting and formatting accounts into Metro 2 files meets all of these guidelines! If we can't trust what's on my credit report, then who knows how many other things will fall apart when they rely upon accurate information from them? Lets examine Date Opened ( XXXX ) showing XX/XX/XXXX Metro 2 requires that all reported information be accurate and up-to-date. It's clear there have been some errors in this account, which calls into question the integrity of everything else reported on here! XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX The information provided above has not been certified to meet any reporting standards. The data is not complete, accurate, or up-to-date, and no evidence has been supplied to confirm compliance with any consumer protection laws. I demand that this information be deleted immediately. Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. Upon inspecting Date Opened ( XXXX ) exhibiting XX/XX/XXXX. These discrepancies are alarming and I'm confident you'll resolve them quickly. Please review the account with a fine tooth comb, as it appears that something isn't quite right here! The data appears inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the CDIA. Viewing Date Reported ( - ) demonstrating XX/XX/XXXXXXXX You are deficient in your ability to report accurately if you can not prove compliance with federal and state regulations! I am looking for evidence that this account is compliant. Show me how exactly it meets all the requirements of current regulation? Upon inspecting Date of Last Activity ( XXXX ) exhibiting XX/XX/XXXXXXXX I am writing to ask for your help in reviewing this account. The data appears inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the CDIA, so I would like you to review it again and make sure everything is true/ accurate about what's going on here before accepting its accuracy as fact! If there are any discrepancies when checking out these claims please remove me from consideration immediately because nothing can be worth doing at less than 100 % Bring to your attention Account Type ( XXXX ) reporting Revolving account I think this account is inaccurate because it doesn't follow the required standards. I challenge you to prove that this account and your reporting practices and process are perfect and complete. That includes following the Credit Reporting Industry 's Metro 2 Format standards. If you can't do that, then clearly my credit report and what youre reporting for is not accurate. Lets examine Past Due Amount ( XXXX ) showing - Clearly you're not a fan of compliance standards, as I can tell from how inaccurate the data for this account and my credit report is! This isn't enough to convince me that all information for the account has been verified. Prove it! When I scrutinized Creditor Type ( - ) presenting Revolving account. It appears there is a problem with the data reported because it doesn't meet required standards. The information may not be accurate due to deviations from what's needed in compliance with Metro 2 guidelines, so You must make sure all fields are filled out correctly according to those standards PRIOR to adding anything to my credit profile! XXXX XXXX  - XXXX I am extremely disappointed that the information you have provided is not accurate and does not meet the minimum standards for credit reporting. I demand that this be fixed immediately or else I will take legal action. Inaccurate, imperfect information has no place in your database or on my credit report, so please delete it now. Also, see the image above for XXXX CARD ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. Upon inspecting Payment Status ( XXXX ) exhibiting Charged off as bad debt. The data you reported doesn't meet the requirements! It's not accurate because it deviates from what is required. As I know, You must always report all fields in compliance with Metro 2 standards and there can be no deviations from these rules so please correct this account right away before I am financially impacted by this incomplete, unverified and inaccurate information Lets take a look at Date Opened ( XXXX ) reporting XX/XX/XXXX. There may be a problem with the data reported because it doesn't meet the required standards. The data may not be accurate because it deviates from what is required. As you know You must report all Data fields in compliance with the Metro 2 standards. There can be no deviation from these requirements. When I scrutinized Past Due Amount ( XXXX ) presenting -. Compliance with regulatory requirements is essential for accurate credit reporting! Prove to me that your information for this account has been fully vetted and meets all the standards of federal law, including but not limited Metro 2 standards. I need you show proof or explain how this account is compliant I was looking at Payment Amount ( XXXX ) expressing {$0.00} We all know the importance of compliance with regulatory mandates for accurate credit reporting, but how did you prove it for this account? That's what I'm trying to find out here.I need some convincing documentation that can show me the process for ensuring 100 % accuracy and compliance with credit reporting guidelines and regulations. I want physical tangible proof! Viewing Account Status ( XXXX ) demonstrating Closed is deviating from applicable compliance standards! It is imperative that the data within my credit report is accurately reported, which can be accomplished only if there's no deviation from what's required for compliance reporting! If data reporting isn't done correctly or taken seriously then we might see less integrity of said reports as they will lack one or more essential components needed to make them believable and reliable. If the data in my reports is inaccurate that may negatively impact my credit score and my ability to obtain financing in the future. XXXX XXXX - XXXX The inaccurate and outdated information you have provided is unacceptable and needs to be fixed immediately. If it is not fixed, legal action may be necessary. Your database and credit report should only contain accurate information. Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. I was looking at Last Payment ( XXXX ) expressing -. This is a formal complaint about the content of my report. It has come to my attention that you failed in following standard procedures for accuracy, and as such I question its validity if not fixed immediately. Lets examine Term Length ( XXXX ) showing -. The data for this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of CDIA. I would like you review it again and prove that everything is true, accurate, complete & timely! If not able to adhere to these compliance requirements please remove my profile immediately. Viewing Account Description demonstrating Individual account. There are some aspects of this account that I am having trouble understanding because its not accurate. Can you provide more information about your process for ensuring 100 % compliance across all areas? XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The derogatory information above was never verified to be accurate, complete, timely, and validated! You must provide documented proof of compliance reporting standards and applicable consumer laws. The information above is deficient. I demand that imperfect, inaccurate, incomplete, and unverified information be deleted immediately! Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. When I scrutinized Creditor Type ( - ) presenting Installment account This account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of CDIA. I would like you to review this report again and PROVE that everything is true, accurate ( i.e., dates ), compliant with all requirements & comply immediately if unable! I was looking at Balance Owed ( XXXX ) expressing {$2400.00}. There is no question that compliance with regulatory mandates for accurate credit reporting, including those related to document verifications and proofing processes has never been more important. Can you show me where your company is following all of the rules when it comes to reporting this account? I'm looking for official documentation that will prove 100 % accuracy and compliance with credit-reporting guidelines. Physical tangible proof! Lets examine Date of Last Activity ( XXXX ) showing XX/XX/XXXX. That's not quite right. What is your current level of compliance with CDIA standards? I noticed that you have not adhered to all reporting requirements. Please review the information on file and prove its accuracy. I am demanding that you adhere to the standards of CDIA reporting requirements or remove my information from this account immediately! Lets take a look at Date Opened ( XXXX ) reporting XX/XX/XXXX. The data reported doesn't meet the required standards. It could be inaccurate because it deviates from what's allowed, so make sure all fields are correct before adding anything to my credit report Upon inspecting Payment Status ( XXXX ) exhibiting Charged off as bad debt. I believe we have some issues with accuracy and compliance regarding this account. I challenge you prove the accuracy of this account and reporting practices with proof from Metro 2 standards. If applicable compliance standards are not followed then my records may contain inaccurate information about myself which will affect future loans or decisions made based on those wrong assumptions. Lets examine High Balance ( XXXX ) showing {$11000.00} Compliance with Metro 2 standards is paramount to ensure accurate data reporting. There can be NO deviation from these mandatorily required fields, or it would compromise the integrity of all reported information. When reviewing this account, apparent inaccuracies call into question the entire account! XXXX XXXX XXXX  - XXXX The data above was never certified to meet any reporting standards. It's also worth noting that this information may be incomplete, outdated, or unsupported. I would like to see any incorrect or unsupported material removed from this page. Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. I was looking at Account # ( XXXX ) expressing XXXX The data on this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the CDIA. I would like you to review it again and prove to me that everything is true, accurate, consistent etcetera! If unable then remove my profile immediately- please do not hesitate in removing accounts which do not meet these requirements When I scrutinized Date of Last Activity ( XXXX ) presenting XX/XX/XXXX. The information reported doesn't seem to meet the standards set by Metro 2 guidelines. You must make sure all fields are filled out correctly and in 100 % compliances prior adding anything onto my credit profile! Please remove this inaccurate record from my report or provide proof of your compliance with applicable standards. When I scrutinized Account Description presenting Individual account I noticed some issues! You know that I'm a hard-working individual, but there are some things on my credit report which do not reflect the truth. The accuracy of your reports depend on how thoroughly you follow the standards set by Metro 2. If I can't trust what's in my credit report, then there is no point to having one at all!. This account doesn't follow the required standards, and I challenge you to prove that everything is perfect in my report! XXXX XXXX - XXXX I demand that this deficient information be deleted immediately! This information was never verified to be accurate, complete, timely, or validated. It was never proven to be compliant with reporting standards. Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. When I scrutinized 2 Year Payment History presenting I am writing to ask for an explanation of why your account appears inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards at CDIA. There seems to be some discrepancies and I would like them resolved immediately! Viewing Balance Owed ( XXXX ) demonstrating {$160.00}. The content of this account does not meet Metro 2 requirements. I challenge anyone who uses these reports and their process, including following standard procedures for accuracy in reporting. My credit report should comply with metro 2 requirements or else I will have my ability to finance questioned. This account needs fixing immediately! Viewing High Balance ( XXXX ) demonstrating {$160.00} The accuracy of my credit report is crucial to me. My future financing options may be limited if the information in it isn't accurate and I'll need even more than just good scores before getting approved for anything! This account seems to be inaccurate and not adhering to compliance standards. XXXX - XXXX I demand that any wrong, incomplete, or unsupported material be deleted from the content that was never certified to be in conformity with reporting standards. The preceding data was never proven to be exact, complete, up to date, or validated, and I require any documentation confirming compliance with reporting obligations and any consumer legislation. Also, see the image above for XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. Viewing Account Status ( XXXX ) demonstrating Closed. I am reaching out to you because the content of this account does not meet Metro 2 Format requirements. I challenge anyone who uses these reports and their process, including following standard procedures for accuracy in reporting- if unable then clearly my credit score has been challenged by inaccuracies on files which need fixing before anything else can happen with these accounts!. Credit Reports should represent financial standing while adhering strictly towards compliance standards ; otherwise my ability as an individual will be questioned based off what's included within them without verification from another source such as bank statements or other documents related directly toward finances. Please fix this account immediately! Upon inspecting 2 Year Payment History exhibiting. I am writing to challenge the accuracy and compliance reports about this account. I believe there may be some issues with how it is being reported, which could affect future loans or decisions based on those wrong assumptions. Please provide proof that all proper procedures were followed so our records contain accurate information regarding myself! I was looking at Account # ( XXXX ) expressing XXXX The information on this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the CDIA. I would like you to review it again and prove me wrong, so that my account can be 100 % accurate! XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX The content mentioned above was never verified to meet reporting standards. The data preceding it was never verified to be accurate, complete, or up to date. I require any erroneous, incomplete, or unsupported material be deleted. Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. I want to bring to your attention Date Opened ( XXXX ) reporting XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  The data for this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with established reporting standards of the CDIA. I would like you to review it again and prove that everything is true, accurate, complete ( in time ), verified & compliant with all requirements- if not then please remove my profile! I want to bring to your attention Payment Amount ( XXXX ) reporting {$0.00}. This account is not compliant with the standards and is deficient in its reporting ability. As you know, compliance with regulatory mandates is essential for accurate credit reporting! Prove to me that your information for this account is compliant? Prove to me how you met all the regulatory requirements! If you can not prove compliance with federal and state regulations and mandates, youre deficient in your ability to report effectively. I want to bring to your attention Last Payment ( XXXX ) reporting -. I believe that this account is not compliant with the standards and its reporting ability. As you know, compliance with regulatory mandates such as those set out by federal or state governments are essential for accurate credit card transactions? Prove to me how your information was able meet these high expectations by providing documents which prove otherwise!? Lets examine Date of Last Activity ( XXXX ) showing XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I challenge you to prove that your reporting practices and process are perfect, complete with Metro 2 format guidelines! If you cant do so then clearly my credit report which relies on accurate information will also not be accurate! When I scrutinized Balance Owed ( XXXX ) presenting {$7900.00} I challenge the accuracy of this account on my credit report. You know that I am a hard-working individual, but there are some things on it which do not reflect what's true for me and this is why your company has received so many complaints from customers who had issues with their reports being accurate or complete enough as they claim to be able provide such services if needed! How can I trust what's in my credit report? It doesn't look like you're following the required standards. XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX The above-mentioned content was never certified to be in conformity with reporting standards. The preceding data was never proven to be exact, complete, up to date, or validated! Documentation confirming compliance with reporting obligations and any consumer legislation is required. The information supplied above is insufficient. I demand that any wrong, incomplete, or unsupported material be deleted! Also, see the image above for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). Ive highlighted and circled additional areas of concern. I want to bring to your attention Past Due Amount ( XXXX ) reporting - The data for this account appears to be inaccurate or inconsistent with the established reporting standards of the CDIA. I would like you to review the account again and prove to me that everything is true, accurate, consistent, complete, timely, verified and compliant with all requirements and standards. If you can not adhere to compliance standards and prove your adherence to compliance standards please remove this account from my profile immediately! Viewing Last Payment ( XXXX ) demonstrating -. You are in serious trouble if you can't provide proof that this account has been compliant with all current regulations! I need evidence to back up your claims. Show me how exactly does it meet these requirements? Upon inspecting Account Description exhibiting Individual account. The federal and state regulations are a necessary component in ensuring that your company is run responsibly. I can't imagine how we would operate if they were not obeyed! So, let 's take this opportunity for you to show me proof of your adherence to applicable compliance standards for this particular account. Upon inspecting Account Status ( XXXX ) exhibiting Closed. There are certain things I can not live without. One of those necessities is compliance with federal and state regulations! So, how did you manage to comply? Prove your compliance by showing me some proof! Bring to your attention 2 Year Payment History reporting What are your thoughts on this? I challenge you to prove that my credit report and reporting practices are perfect. If you can't do it, then clearly the information in regards to me is inaccurate because Metro 2 standards arent being met! Inquiries ELAN FINANCI XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  TransUnion I received a copy of my credit report and noticed a credit inquiry from a company that I don't remember authorizing. I understand that you shouldn't be allowed to put an inquiry on my credit file without my authorization, so please remove this inquiry from my credit file immediately. Please forward me documentation that you have investigated and removed the unauthorized inquiry. XXXX XXXX  XXXX XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion According to my most recent credit report, this company is currently reporting to the credit bureaus that I applied for credit with their organization. I did not authorize this company to review my credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that a creditor be able to verify the written authorization of the consumer giving the creditor permission to review their credit. If you can provide a copy of a credit application authorizing the disclosure of my credit files with my signature, I will accept the inquiry. If a signed authorization can not be found please remove the inquiry from my credit report. The presence of this inquiry is adversely affecting my credit report and is impeding my ability to obtain necessary credit. Time is of the essence so I would greatly appreciate a response from you within thirty ( 30 ) days. Please mail me the copy of the signed application or a letter indicating your intention to delete the inquiry. XXXX XXXX  XXXX XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion I received my credit report and was surprised to find an inquiry on it. As you know, this should not have been reported! The Fair Credit Reporting Act states that no one can access your information without your permission, so please provide me with proof of what reason they had for doing so by providing documentation containing signatures showing that I applied for a loan or line of business venture through their company, as well as any other relevant details. Im sure you will realize that these inquiries shouldnt be on my credit after all! Yours Truly You are violating my rights! I have listed the concerns about your reporting in this document. It's not complete and does not meet my standards ; according to law, you must certify all aspects of required FCRA/ Metro 2 compliance which is done truthfully, correctly ( in a timely manner ), completely AND accurately as well - or else I would have to escalate these issues to the CFPB XXXX FTC and my Attorney General. XXXX XXXX Please send your written response to my address of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX I am aware that you have been sending out form letters in response to many of the disputes and challenges that consumers have submitted, regardless of the specific information that they have provided. This is illegal, as each dispute and challenge must be addressed individually and on its own merits.My letters were created using software that is available to everyone. If you don't process my letters, you are violating 15 U.S. Code 5 1681i. Keep in mind, you are not allowed to delay processing letters from consumers based on the assumption that help from a third party may be available. This is not a legal exception.I am the author of any letters you receive with my name on them. Either I or my advisors wrote them with my full knowledge and consent. I am aware that there is no law that says you need to provide a Power of Attorney in order to delay processing letters from a consumer.If you do not process my letters in a timely manner, I will consider it to be an intentional disregard of my rights as a consumer. I will then contact my lawyer to take legal action.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-04T17:53:06.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91773","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8106774","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-01-04T17:47:39.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The federal and state <em>regulations</em> are a necessary component in ensuring that your company is run responsibly. I can't imagine how we would operate if they were not obeyed! So, let 's take this opportunity for you to show me proof of your adherence to applicable <em>compliance</em> standards for this particular account. Upon inspecting Account Status ( XXXX ) exhibiting Closed. There are certain things I can not live without. One of those necessities is <em>compliance</em> with federal and state <em>regulations</em>!"]},"sort":[9.277069,"8106774"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105365","_score":9.009635,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by Wells Fargo. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. \n\nNow, this mismanagement of account information by Wells Fargo is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX  claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledgment of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims WF is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, WF is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  and 0XXXX XXXX XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XXXX XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR  to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XXXX XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date WF has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that WF will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX claim that the clause excuses WF compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:23:03.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105365","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-01-30T19:43:58.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving <em>forward</em>. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-<em>compliance</em> I pointed out."]},"sort":[9.009635,"4105365"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105353","_score":9.009635,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( 27th ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to Experian and XXXX This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 XXXX Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:33:09.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105353","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:33:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX then <em>goes</em> on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out <em>complaint</em> XXXX."]},"sort":[9.009635,"4105353"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105375","_score":8.981089,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. \n\nNow, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order XXXX and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB XXXX announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of XXXX and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX. Per CFPB consent order XXXX, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and Transunion, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with XXXX and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:23:13.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105375","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:23:07.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX <em>compliance</em> with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( <em>Regulation</em> Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of <em>compliance</em> to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with XXXX and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( <em>Regulation</em> Z ) 1026."]},"sort":[8.981089,"4105375"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105327","_score":8.981089,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by Wells Fargo. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by Wells Fargo is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order XXXX and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( 27th ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of XXXX and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order XXXX, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with XXXX and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:32:59.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105327","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:25:15.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX then <em>goes</em> on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out <em>complaint</em> XXXX."]},"sort":[8.981089,"4105327"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105361","_score":8.977799,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX and Equifax. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, Exquifax, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX XXXX the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:33:09.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105361","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:33:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX then <em>goes</em> on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out <em>complaint</em> XXXX."]},"sort":[8.977799,"4105361"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11230320","_score":8.942258,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To whom it may concern : I am contesting the information on my credit report that I believe is not accurate.I have a right to contest any information on my credit report that I believe is inaccurate. I am contesting any information on my credit report that I believe is not accurate. The data included in this document must be documented and validated before it can go onto the actual reports! The allegations of delinquency and derogatoriness are without evidence, so I refuse to accept them as true. Let me take a moment to inform you that the reportability of this allegation has been challenged. It doesn't meet federal or state requirements for reporting, so please make sure it's as accurate and thorough in its entirety before submitting anything! The law requires that you make sure all of your claims are accurate and reported in the correct format. This is a great way to ensure compliance with regulations, so we hope this reminder helps! All of our information must be reported accurately and according with XXXX XXXX regulations or else you could face fines! AGAIN! Please take this seriously. I am writing to remind you that all your claims need accurate reporting in order for them be reported correctly, which is required by law ( FCRA ) and XXXX XXXX standards.For any account that is alleged to be delinquent or derogatory, I would like evidence showing why you and the company who provided the data to you considers the financial state as such. The law requires that I have proof of a permissible purpose for any inquiry within my report. Therefore, Im requesting that you verify permissible purpose was provided for each account and inquiry. You have 30 days to investigate this matter and confirm that it is being reported correctly or remove any errors from the report. I am looking forward to receiving your proof of action and my updated credit report. \nREVENUE ENTERPRISES LL XXXX XXXX Account Account # : XXXX Account Rating : CollectionOrChargeOff Description : Individual Account Status : Closed Balance Account Type : Installment Owed : {$13000.00} Closed Date : -- Credit Limit : -- ACCOUNT SERIOUSLY PAST DUE DATE/ACCOUNT ASSIGNED TO ATTORNEY, COLLECTION AGENCY, OR CREDIT GRANTOR 'S Creditor Remarks : XXXX XXXX XXXX Creditor Type : CollectionServices Date Date Opened : XXXX Reported : XXXX Date of Last Activity : XXXX Dispute Status : N High Balance : {$12000.00} Last Payment : -- Past Due Last Verified : XXXX Amount : -- Payment Payment Amount : -- Frequency : -- Payment Status : CollectionOrChargeOff Term Length : 1 Loan Type : CollectionAttorney I noticed that the account REVENUE ENTERPRISES LL with the number XXXX is incorrectly showing a rating of CollectionOrChargeOff on my credit report. You listed it as opened on XXXX and the last activity as XXXX, but this is wrong. Could you please remove it? \n\n\nYou also mentioned that it was last verified on XXXX. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681, I have the right to see how you verified this. Please send me that info. And I need proof that I owe {$13000.00}, because I dont owe anything. \nAs seen in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), wrong info needs to be corrected. Thank you! \nREVENUE ENTERPRISES LL XXXX XXXX Account Account # : XXXX Account Rating : CollectionOrChargeOff Description : Individual Account Status : Closed Balance Account Type : Installment Owed : {$7300.00} Closed Date : -- Credit Limit : -- ACCOUNT SERIOUSLY PAST DUE DATE/ACCOUNT ASSIGNED TO ATTORNEY, COLLECTION AGENCY, OR CREDIT GRANTOR 'S Creditor Remarks : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Creditor Type : CollectionServices Date Date Opened : XXXX Reported : XXXX Date of Last Activity : XXXX Dispute Status : XXXX High Balance : {$6700.00} Last Payment : -- Past Due Last Verified : XXXX Amount : -- Payment Payment Amount : -- Frequency : -- Payment Status : CollectionOrChargeOff Term Length : 1 Loan Type : CollectionAttorney The account REVENUE ENTERPRISES LL ( XXXX ) on my credit report is wrong, showing a rating of CollectionOrChargeOff. Dates XXXX and XXXX are incorrect. This is stopping me from getting loans. \nBy 15 U.S.C. 1681e, I demand you delete this account and give proof of the {$7300.00}.\n\nYours Truly You are not following the rules. I have listed all of my rights in this document so that they can be met accordingly, but it appears you do not care about fulfilling your obligations under Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) or Metro 2 law Please send your written response to my\naddress of : ( not including on this complaint ) I am aware that you have been sending out form letters in response to many of the disputes and challenges that consumers have submitted, regardless of the specific information that they haveprovided. This is illegal, as each dispute and challenge must be addressed individually and on its own merits.My letters were created using software that is available to everyone. If you don't process my letters, you are violating 15 U.S. Code 5 1681i. Keep in mind, you are not allowed to delay processing letters from consumers based on the assumption that help from a third party maybe available. This is not a legal exception.I am the author of any letters you receive with my name on them. Either I or my advisors wrote them with my full knowledge and consent. I am aware that there is no law that says you need to provide a Power of Attorney in order to delay processing letters from a consumer.If you do not process my letters in a timely manner, I will consider it to be an intentional disregard of my rights as a consumer. I will then contact my lawyer to take legal action.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-20T16:20:49.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Medical debt","zip_code":"73160","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11230320","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Revenue Enterprises, LLC","date_received":"2024-12-20T15:54:47.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a great way to ensure <em>compliance</em> with <em>regulations</em>, so we hope this reminder helps! All of our information must be reported accurately and according with XXXX XXXX <em>regulations</em> or else you could face fines! AGAIN! Please take this seriously."]},"sort":[8.942258,"11230320"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":52,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":52}]}},"product":{"doc_count":52,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":12}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":6},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":8}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":6},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2},{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":52,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":8},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":3}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2,"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":1},{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Electronic communications","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Frequent or repeated messages","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","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 with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't temporarily delay making payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Collected or attempted to collect exempt funds","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":52,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":50},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":52,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":45},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":5},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":52,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":52}]}},"company":{"doc_count":52,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":7},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":5},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"HighPoint Law Offices, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL GROUP","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"OCEANSIDE MORTGAGE COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Relay Financial (US), Corp.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Revenue Enterprises, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":52,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MI","doc_count":9},{"key":"CA","doc_count":8},{"key":"TX","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":4},{"key":"MA","doc_count":3},{"key":"PA","doc_count":3},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"UT","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":52,"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":24},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":4},{"key":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":52,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":7},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[8.942258,"11230320"],"3":[4.5988665,"11604280"]}}}