{"took":135,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":10,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4282809","_score":9.110745,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX I was approved for a US Federal Program managed by the state of North Carolina to prevent foreclosure managed by the XXXX. At this time, I was not in arrears on my mortgage payments and had been approved for the program due to my employer closing a zone and laying off employees. The guarantees of this program, listed with the federally initiated program is a Stay Of Foreclosure, verification of residency, and property maintenance as usual while in the program. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX spent many months trying to get current amount owed with my mortgage status. \n\nAfter I mailed XXXX, XXXX payment, Flagstar reversed a portion of the payment, keeping the {$1200.00} portion where it disappeared and in XXXX, they added a 30 days late payment to my credit report. Even with the Federal Stay protections and the guarantee of a federal housing agency that the loan was under their protections, Flagstar sent a man to the home to \" inspect '', which was nothing more than take photographs, peek into our windows, and beat on our door and place a notice of debt collection, which was not supposed to happen. The XXXX federal program and automatic stay prevented any negative actions by the mortgage company while the mortgage was monitored for whatever changes the agency saw fit to initiate to protect me as a homeowner. Flagstar began to add miscellaneous fees that we disputed. First, they know we are homeowners, living inside the home with a family. Secondly, we are governed by an HOA and have a standard of living to uphold. Third, there was always constant work being done inside and outside of the house as there is an exterior fountain and water feature, extensive landscape and gardening, and a pool which we spent many hours maintaining. We even paid for roof and insulation repairs and were in the middle of lawn work when the agent came to \" verify '' the home wasn't abandoned. Lastly, the terms of the contract with XXXX XXXX that you must remain in the home and maintain the home. There was no legal need nor concern for Flagstar to violate our protections this way. \n\nFlagstar charged my mortgage account over {$1700.00} in \" investor fees '' in which they can not explain the legitimacy of. As I stated, I have receipts of money spent on supplies and invoices for professional work done in the home, such as new floor, paint, shingles, and an entire overhaul of the flashing while Flagstar was charging us as a \" vacant '' home. We have school aged children and pets and live an active lifestyle and work outside often and there was never any suspicion the home was at risk for vacancy after having just closed our loan XX/XX/XXXX and investing {$30000.00} in updates and maintenance. We have maintained a subscription for security and also have a XXXX  doorbell system that has been active since XXXX, XXXX. Also, Flagstar has added many fees to the mortgage with no explanation of the sources. \n\nFinally, after many complaints and investigations into what the actual mortgage balance was, XXXX relented and agreed to an inflated amount to bring our mortgage current. The amount does not match the actual mortgage due including late fees, and I'm concerned that Flagstar has inadvertently taken funds that could have paid down our mortgage. Flagstar continued to increase the amount due to bring the loan current even after finalizing in XX/XX/XXXX. The \" suspense '' amount continued to increase and many unexplained charges were padded into my mortgage. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX had a final dollar amount and the documents were were processed confirming the loan would be updated as current and that all previous late notations on the credit reports would be removed due to the Automatic Stay and Federal Housing program stipulations. The total sum of {$17000.00} was electronically issued to Flagstar Bank via wire transfer, and {$1000.00} of this amount was for \" lender cushion '' with no future explanation how the funds would be disbursed. This {$17000.00} included multiple drive by fees in which Flagstar charged $ XXXX {$200.00} to have a man take pictures of my home to see if it was occupied as well and many fees randomly added to my mortgage balance. \n\nAfter verifying the funds has been cleared in XX/XX/XXXX, Flagstar 's drive-by agent came to our house again, peeking into windows and taking photos and we were charged the fee again. In XX/XX/XXXX, the same man came by and charged another drive-by fee to our mortgage but he didn't get out of the car. \n\nAs of XXXX, XXXX, Flagstar continued to report my mortgage as late with the credit bureaus and harass me for non-payment. I received collections calls from Flagstar through XXXX, XXXX. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, Flagstar referred me to HUD for a program to become compliant, while not posting the advance payments I made on my mortgage a month early and continuing to report me late to the credit bureau. HUD forced me to comply with terms of an interview while being just as confused as I was when they found out my mortgage payments were up-to-date. Flagstar continued to keep my mortgage in the loss mitigation department through XX/XX/XXXX. The forced compliance with HUD counselors was embarrassing, time-wasting, and it should have been for customers who actually needed their assistance. HUD counselors stated they were legally obligated to continue the process because Flagstar loss mitigation had placed my mortgage with HUD and refused to remove it months after complaints were filed. \n\nAfter receiving a full payment of over {$2600.00} which is Principal, Interest, and PMI, another {$320.00} added again for \" suspense '' and then I was forced to pay another {$79.00} over the phone in XXXX, XXXX and was still reported late to the credit bureaus even though XXXX 's payment was made on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX agents told me I wasn't required to pay any additional funds to Flagstar and that Flagstar was required to communicate with XXXX as I was under federal program protection and XXXX acted as my agent. \n\nFlagstar continued to improperly report my mortgage balance throughout XXXX in spite of multiple attempts to rectify by agents at XXXX and their own refusal to allow me to speak to a resolutions specialist to correct my mortgage because it was placed in Loss Mitigation where it was consistently improperly handled and my housing rights were violated.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-08T22:48:50.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"28227","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4282809","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Flagstar Bank, N.A.","date_received":"2021-04-08T21:17:10.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The forced <em>compliance</em> with HUD counselors was embarrassing, <em>time</em>-wasting, and it should have been for customers who actually needed their assistance. HUD counselors stated they were legally obligated to continue the process because Flagstar loss mitigation had placed my mortgage with HUD and refused to remove it months after complaints were filed."]},"sort":[9.110745,"4282809"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21633039","_score":8.748973,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is filed as a supplement to complaint number XXXX, filed XX/XX/year>, and should be reviewed in conjunction with that record and the two supplemental complaints filed this morning.\n\nThis filing addresses a single specific claim made by EarnIn in their formal response to complaint number XXXX, submitted to this federal body on XX/XX/year>. \n\nThat claim is that this matter was reviewed thoroughly at the highest levels within EarnIn before their response was filed. \n\nThat claim was misrepresented and should be addressed. \n\nThe Claim In their XX/XX/year> federal response EarnIn stated explicitly that this matter had been escalated to the highest levels within the company to ensure a comprehensive review. That statement was not a casual representation. It was submitted formally to a federal regulator as the foundation of their resolution offer and their request that this matter be considered finally resolved. \n\nThe CFPB is asked to examine whether that characterization is accurate in light of what EarnIn did on the same day they made it. \n\nWhat A Thorough Review At The Highest Levels Would Have Captured A thorough review conducted at the highest levels of EarnIn prior to filing their XX/XX/XXXX federal response would have captured the following. Each item was documented, active, and accessible within EarnIns own systems and correspondence channels before that filing was made. \n\nOne Three direct questions submitted to EarnIns VP of Customer Care between XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  within her own invitation window. Not one was answered. Not one was referenced in EarnIns federal response.\n\nTwo A formal enrollment misrepresentation complaint submitted directly through EarnIns official complaint channels on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX fourteen hours before the federal filing. Not acknowledged. Not incorporated. No response to date.\n\nThree Explicit written warnings delivered to EarnIns executive and legal leadership on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX  stating that public documentation of this matter was forthcoming and would be directed at EarnIns target audience.\n\nThose warnings were delivered through the same correspondence channel that EarnIns General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer confirmed receiving. They were explicit. They were timestamped. They named EarnIns target audience specifically.\n\nFour A public social media post published on approximately XX/XX/year> three days before EarnIns federal filing in r/cashadvanceapps, a community EarnIns verified account was actively engaged in, containing the exact chat log that had been in front of EarnIns support structure, supervisors, quality assurance team, VP of Customer Care , General Counsel, and Chief Compliance Officer since XX/XX/XXXX. That post had accumulated over XXXX views by the time EarnIn filed their federal response. \n\nFive The complete email correspondence chain between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year> containing additional admissions, failed remediation attempts, and executive level acknowledgments that developed after the original complaint was filed and were not referenced in EarnIns federal response.\n\nA thorough review conducted at the highest levels of this company would have identified every one of these items before a federal response was filed. None were addressed. None were incorporated. None were acknowledged.\n\nThe Question EarnIn Can not Answer EarnIn is not a passive organization with a generic public presence. They are an active and deliberate participant in the exact financial communities where their target consumers live. Their verified XXXX account was engaged across multiple financial subreddits on XX/XX/XXXX the same day they filed their federal resolution. XXXX. XXXX. XXXX. XXXX. These are not incidental communities. These are the precise communities where EarnIns core consumer base discusses the exact products at the center of this matter.\n\nThey were not browsing. They were operating. Dispensing financial guidance. Building brand trust. Positioning themselves as the informed and benevolent authority in the consumer finance space. \n\nOn that same day a post titled EarnIn failed to provide proper disclosures at the time of account cancellation, later acknowledged material harm sat in r/cashadvanceapps with over XXXX views. It contained the exact chat log that had been circulating internally for nine days. It had been live for three days. It was published after three explicit written warnings of forthcoming public documentation had been delivered to EarnIns executive and legal leadership through correspondence they confirmed receiving.\n\nBetween one and two hours after filing their federal resolution EarnIns verified account responded to that post as though encountering this situation for the first time.\n\nOn the evening of XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  that question was posed directly to EarnIns verified XXXX account through a private message. It received no response. \nIt is now posed formally to this federal body. \nHow did EarnIn miss this? \n\nThis is not a rhetorical question. It is a structural one that EarnIns own thorough review claim can not survive. \n\nEarnIn presents itself publicly as an omniscient and trustworthy authority in the consumer finance space. Their entire product depends on that omniscience they monitor paycheck deposits to the dollar, track direct deposit timing in real time, and position themselves as the informed alternative to predatory financial institutions. \n\nThey can not simultaneously claim to know exactly when a paycheck posts to a consumers account and claim they missed a XXXX view post about their own product failure sitting in a fintech subreddit they were actively engaged in on the same afternoon they filed a federal resolution. \n\nIf this matter was genuinely reviewed thoroughly at the highest levels by a General Counsel who confirmed receipt, a Chief Compliance Officer who was copied throughout, a VP of Customer Care who was in direct correspondence, and ten representatives who engaged across nine days how did not one person in that review share three explicit written warnings of forthcoming public documentation with the team managing EarnIns public presence in the exact community where that documentation appeared three days before their filing?\n\nThe warnings were in the record. The record was reviewed. The public team was active in that community. The post was three days old when they commented on it as though seeing it for the first time.\n\nThe Two Explanations There are only two explanations for EarnIns public response to that post and EarnIn must answer for both of them before this federal body.\n\nThe first explanation is that EarnIns internal communication is so completely fractured that a public post containing an active federal complaint involving their own General Counsel published three days before their filing, preceded by three explicit written warnings delivered four to five days before their filing, accumulating over XXXX views in a community their own verified account was actively engaged in never reached the people conducting the review they characterized as thorough and comprehensive. If that is the case then the claim o\n\nf thorough review at the highest levels made formally to this federal body is not accurate. It is a misrepresentation of EarnIns actual internal process submitted to a federal regulator as the basis for closing a consumer complaint. The second explanation is that EarnIns internal communication did function. That the post was known. That the warnings were known. And that their publi\nc team was directed to engage with that post as though encountering it for the first time as a deliberate strategy to move a XXXX view public thread into a private channel where it disappears from the record while simultaneously filing a federal resolution characterizing the same matter as closed. If that is the case then EarnIns public response was coordinated and performative and their characterization of their internal process as thorough is a calculated misrepresentation submitted to this federal body to manufacture the appearance of comprehensive engagement where none existed. \n\nNeither explanation is consistent with a thorough review conducted at the highest levels of the company. \n\nBoth are inconsistent with the representations made formally to this federal body on XX/XX/year>. \n\nOne represents institutional incompetence of a scale that directly contradicts EarnIns own characterization of their review process.\n\nThe other represents deliberate misrepresentation to a federal regulator.\n\nEarnIn must answer before this federal body which of those two explanations is true.\n\nTheir filing claims the former is impossible. Their conduct confirms one of them is not.\n\nThe Standard EarnIn Set For Themselves EarnIn did not describe their review as adequate. They did not describe it as reasonable. They described it as thorough. They described it as conducted at the highest levels. They submitted that characterization formally to a federal regulator as the foundation of their request that this matter be considered closed.\n\nThe evidence presented in this filing produced entirely by EarnIns own conduct on the same day that characterization was made demonstrates that the review was not thorough. It was not comprehensive. And the claim that it was constitutes a material misrepresentation made to this federal body in a formal regulatory response.\n\nThe CFPB is respectfully requested to examine that claim and to require EarnIn to account for the specific failures of internal communication and review documented here before this matter is permitted to remain closed. \n\nPlease note : the points raised in this filing are not simply my interpretation of the events of XX/XX/year>. They are points that emerged directly through EarnIns own conflict resolution process acknowledged, confirmed, and in several instances formally admitted by EarnIns own representatives, supervisors, and executive leadership across an entirely written correspondence record spanning nine days.\n\nThey are brought to the attention of this federal body because internal dialogue despite being initiated, documented, and pursued in good faith at every stage was effectively abandoned on multiple occasions by EarnIn across that same record.\n\nEarnIn will now demonstrate through their response to this federal body either a contrasting or a comparable approach to the pattern documented here, with whatever urgency they deem this matter deserves.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-27T17:38:18.000Z","issue":"Confusing or missing disclosures","sub_product":"Earned wage access","zip_code":"20906","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21633039","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Activehours","date_received":"2026-04-27T17:01:29.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>second</em> explanation is that EarnIns internal communication did function. That the post was known. That the warnings were known. And that their publi\nc team was directed to engage with that post as though encountering it for the first <em>time</em> as a deliberate strategy to move a XXXX view public thread into a private channel where it disappears from the record while simultaneously filing a federal resolution characterizing the same matter as closed."]},"sort":[8.748973,"21633039"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5209101","_score":8.656989,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX RE : Complaint regarding Community Loan Servicing ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX ( XXXX ) I started the end of my forbearance process in XX/XX/XXXX by submitting an application for modification to XXXX. Per follow up phone call to make sure everything was submitted properly, I was told the modification was initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, and advised to wait to begin making any payments upon approval. Process was to take up to 30-45 days. This was in discussion with an XXXX XXXX out of their XXXX office. \n\nXXXX XXXX had handled my mortgage until early XXXX in which it was transferred to Bayview which ultimately changed its name to Community Loan Servicing. \n\nI am presently in a loan modification executed back in XX/XX/XXXX as part of the XXXX program that was offered to struggling homeowners. I had just divorced and because of the way this modification was written, it had a deferred amount of which would sit idle until the sale of the home or payoff of the loan. With this deferral, it made it possible by keeping my payment down and able to retain my home. ( See attachment A ) The deed was transferred by Quit Claim Deed by my former husband and the divorce decree specified me as the sole owner of the property. However, along with this application to CLS I also submitted an application to assume the loan. This process was cancelled by CLS because of documents not returned within given time frame. ( See attachment B ) My goal at this point, however, is to first get into an affordable plan to resume making fair affordable mortgage payments to get on track. Id like it noted that periodically I did make contact throughout forbearance to CLS to make sure I was in compliance and expressed my desire to get back on track. I made mention in several of these conversations how important it was to keep my present terms especially the deferral part as of the huge impact it made on my monthly payment. I even made periodic payments during forbearance to show my good faith. I am not sure just how exactly these dollars were allocated as their statements are very confusing. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX just after I received a phone call from CLS advising me that I had been approved for a modification ( See attachment XXXX ). I was delivered the documents to review and sign to execute this offer they were making me. I had asked the gal who had called for some details of the offer and at that time I told her that it would not be doable and was told when I get the documents to call CLS with my concerns. I also would like to point out, Included in loan documents for the assumption I had applied for that I received on XX/XX/XXXX, were forms to sign and agree to Flood Insurance I would be required to have on my mortgage. I have never needed, or ever have been requested by lender to have flood insurance ( See attachment D ) The only water Im near is a small man made pond in my back yard when home was constructed. This was absurd. I called XXXX XXXX at CLS who was listed as the contact ( ph ( XXXX ) XXXX ). I asked him what other options I had and he replied with an upfront down payment of arrears was the only other one, followed by 3-5 monthly payments spreading out balance of what I was behind. I told him it was highly improbable and the offer needed further consideration. He was to have one of two people get back to me within a couple days, one by the name of XXXX XXXX, a licensed loan originator with CLS. I never did receive a phone call back from either. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contacted XXXX XXXX, my mortgage lender, as I wasnt getting anywhere with CLS. I talked to a gentleman named XXXX, a former case manager as he told me. He sounded very optimistic that there should be some other option and advised me to call CLS back. He agreed it sounded unrealistic and let them know what I needed to be done in order to come to a workable solution. I did again call CLS back, and was told I would hear from someone within 24 hours. I did not. I once again contacted FM and talked to XXXX explaining I had previously talked to XXXX. She said she would escalate the inquiry and would be getting back to me. Time was of the essence, as XX/XX/XXXX marked payment One of the trial period. Several days passed and I didnt hear from XXXX XXXX I once again called XXXX and the representative looked on the notes made on my account by XXXX. She apparently tried to get back but had the wrong area code to my phone number. The notes also read customer has non negotiable offer leaving no options. So, that left me with either sign CLS mod documents and agree with the terms, or come up with {$27000.00} to bring my account current and resume regular payments under XXXX. Neither one of them helping me get back on track as is promised by all these mortgage lenders. \n\nAfter hearing this from XXXX, I one last time contacted XXXX XXXX at CLS. Again, he informed me there was no negotiating and told me specifically what my options were. If I elected to apply for the repayment plan, I would need down payment of {$24000.00} and the remainder of the arrears spread over 3-5 months with a monthly payment of {$2400.00} over 5 months. But because of the {$2400.00} max payment request for this option, I would not even qualify. If I paid the full {$27000.00}, I could resume all terms of my XXXX mortgage as I have and be back on track. They have not given me any realistic options at all other then as I was told, sell my home to keep from foreclosure. When I told him I would only set myself up for falling behind with their terms being offered, he answered I would have the whole month of XXXX to get XXXX payment made, and same for XXXX and XXXX. Then after the trial period, I could try and get the interest rate reduced. Even by lowering the rate on the full balance ( no deferral, their terms ) it still puts that payment of {$2000.00} out of reach. I am prepared to make a reasonable payment, but I can not agree to their modification terms. I have no faith in CLS and certainly would not chance signing and expecting they would lower my rate as they have done nothing to help me thus far. \n\nWith my first payment coming due, and no reasonable resolution intact, I contacted HUD and set up an appointment with XXXX XXXX, a certified housing counselor. I met with her on XX/XX/XXXX. We went over my situation and she made a phone call to CLS, had a very encouraging conversation with XXXX. More details of that conversation are on the attached document which XXXX gave me for submission with my complaint. I had a second meeting with her on XX/XX/XXXX, in which she had arranged a phone appt via voice message to XXXX XXXX, the License Loan Originator, CLS. This was after a lengthy unsuccessful attempt at contacting CLS at the meeting the day of the XXXX by phone, continuously put on hold. The meeting was to be at XXXX pm on the XXXX, at which time XXXX and I met to discuss my situation with XXXX via conference call. Once again, we did not get a phone call back from XXXX for that appt. After waiting at length in hopes of a response, we decided it was time to contact CFBP and get a complaint filed. XXXX did call CFBP and it was agreed we proceed with this complaint. \n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attachments : A, B, C, D Letter from XXXX XXXX, XXXX Credit Counseling Service NOTE : Attachments are available in full, pertinent page selected PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM XXXX XXXX from Consumer Credit Counseling Service which is pertinent to this case.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-02-10T18:48:16.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"549XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5209101","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)","date_received":"2022-02-10T18:12:21.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This process was cancelled by CLS because of documents not returned within given <em>time</em> frame. ( See attachment B ) My goal at this point, however, is to first get into an affordable plan to resume making fair affordable mortgage payments to get on track. Id like it noted that periodically I did make contact <em>throughout</em> forbearance to CLS to make sure I was in <em>compliance</em> and expressed my desire to get back on track."]},"sort":[8.656989,"5209101"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2479378","_score":8.272053,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"This new complaint relates to the complaint already in progress submitted   XXXX   XXXX   , 201  7  #  XXXX , with  Bank of America , provider of the  XXXX  card for the  State o f California temporary  XXXX  insurance program.     Summary :   XXXX   XXXX  , I noticed a transaction made with the card at  XXXX  while I was at home asleep in my bed. It was a pinned transaction made at a local ATM that I frequently have used . 6 ho urs after the transaction was made, I had discovered it, reported it, and at the directive of BOA I had called the local police and reported the transaction.     This new complaint is in regards to the willful and wanton delays in reimbursing the funds, in violation of not only the regulation cited in the original complaint   ( CFR Regulation \" e '' ) but now under the controlling attachments regarding Fiduciary Duties of Banks under the DTPA.\nTimeline   :   XXXX   XXXX  , Filed Dispute With Bank   XXXX   XXXX  , Having no credit issued or reimbursement made, I called and spoke with a supervisor, \"  XXXX  '' several times. She informed me that because the transaction was \" pinned '' that there was no evidence of fraud. ( Although the notes on regul ation \" e '' specifically state that whether a transaction is pinned may not be used to determine its validity and that rather the only requirement for reimbursement is that a customer report the transaction as unauthorized within 48 hours here I reported in 6. ). Furt her,  XXXX  informed me that my own statement was not sufficient evidence that the transaction was unauthorized ( criminalizing the victim ). Further,  XXXX  informed me that this was status quo policy regarding disputes in their department at BOA, and \" she dealt with this every day and knew regulation  \" e ''  thoroughly. She also refused to connect me with any lateral or higher supervisor and would not provide contact information for a regulation compliance or legal department. She did offer to have her  manager call me within 24hours, a call I am still waiting for.      XXXX   XXXX  , I also initiated contact with this bureau to seek resolution with or without the help of the BOA disputes department.       XXXX   XXXX  , I tried calling disputes and claims department and asking for a supervisor again. She \"  XXXX  '' who conveniently seems to be the only supervisor voice at the disputes call center, promised m e a manager c all again which never came on the  XXXX  or  XXXX . I insisted that  XXXX  place the police report ( vague as it was ) that I had gathered from  XXXX  and add it to my file and reopen my claim as she had informed me that the department had already ruled my claim invalid.     On   XXXX   XXXX  , I finally made contact with the regulation compliance person from BOA   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , who informed me that she would act as a  liaison be tween the bank and I throughout the complaint process and that she would have the situation resolved by her own decided resolution date of   XXXX   XXXX  . I informed   XXXX   that this further violated regulation \"  E  '' which requires reimbursement be complete within  seven days, with a maximum customer liability of {$50.00} if timely reported. I also informe d her that the BOA card agreement presented to me when I was given the card stated that timely reporting was supported by a \"  Zero Li ability '' policy thus negating the federal allowance of {$50.00} of customer responsibility.   XXXX   did not seem to be concerned with my reimbursement ( although she did apologize ) nor the timeline.       XXXX   XXXX  , I receive to conflicting pieces of mail. First, a letter from this Bureau stating that the bank has requested more time to prepare a response and that could be 60 days. I also receive a letter from  BOA d ated   XXXX   XXXX  , which states the additional review I requested has been completed and there was no decision error found. These are highly conflicting statements ...     While my first complaint focused on the handling of my claim and the lack of reimbursement ( STILL!!!! ) in violation of CFR  \" E '', I w ould like to now file a complaint that is separate yet related to the original about the timeliness of responses indicative of a willful and wanton disregard for my consumer rights protected by federal regulation with instructive ( clearly worded  ) n otes on how to treat regulation \"  E  ''. I now wish to enforce my rights violated by  BOA  ( hereafter \" the bank '' ) enumerated by the DTPA clauses regarding Banks obligations and duties as a fiduciary.     Regulation \"  E '' i s very clear as to the requirements of its application :  1. An unauthorized transaction was made and the only stipulation that designates transactions as unauthorized is a \" reporting by the cardholder within 48 hours. '' Here I reported the charge as unauthorized and in only six hours. The bank  does not disputed this fact.    2. The regulation application notes specifically state that whether a transaction is \" pinned '' is irrelevant unless the person conducting the transaction had at one time been an authorized user and now was not. The suspect in this case was never authorized to use my card and never authorized to even possess the card, Bank of America has provided no evidence ( and can not unless they manufacture it )  that I have ever authorized anyone to use the card.    3. The maximum liability of a customer by Federal Regulation \" E '' is {$50.00}. When timely reported. Banks may create more lenient but not stricter liability on the part of the consumer. BOA did choose to be more lenient than the fed, because in my card agreement presented when I got the card, I was informed that BOA imposes \" ZERO LIABILITY '' for unauthor ized use so long as reported timely. Because the time of reporting is not in dispute,   BOA admits that I was in compliance with this policy and therefore also the more strict federal policy.\n4. Regulation \" E '' requires that in any case, when timely reported, any funds removed from the customer account must be reimbursed no longer than 7   business days after the unauthorized transaction is reported.   XXXX   XXXX   from  BOA,  when I spoke to here on   XXXX   XXXX  , did not dispute the  seven d ay requirement of regulation  \" e ''. In fact she had no answer as to why this was not already reimbursed, but told me not to worry because they had determined they would provide resolution of this complaint by a promised deadline with the Bureau of   XXXX   XXXX  . Imagine my surprise when I received notice that the BOA had asked fo r additional time to prepare an answer when  XXXX  had appeased me by telling me I would have resolution by   XXXX   XXXX  .  Imagine my  further surprise to learn that BOA had already decided the second opening of this dispute against me on   XXXX   XXXX   when I received a letter to that effect today in the mail.     NEW OFFENSE : THE NEWEST VIOLATION OF BAN  K OF AMERICA IS NOT A VIOLATION OF REGULATION E, BUT RATHER A NEW PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES ENUMERATED UNER THE DTPA.\nTHE VIOLATION OF THE SEVEN BUSINESS DAY REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENT ( STILL TOLLING ) AND IT HAS AMOST BEEN A MONTH NO  W ) WHILE BAD ENOUGH, IS NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS THE WILLFUL & WANTON ACTIONS UNDER THE DTPA, BUT I NOW SEE THAT NOT ONLY ARE THERE CONTINUES ACTIONS WILLFUL AND WANTON, BUT POSSIBLE WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, ADDING A PUNITIVE ELEMENT TO THE DAMAGES IMOSED UPON THE OFFENDER ( HERE BOA ).     The facts here are not disputed. I made the report to the correct department on the correct date within the time pe riod allotted by \" E ''. F urther, I was patient in allowing a grace period before I called back  XXXX  and  XXXX . What is bothering me now is that even after speaking with   XXXX   XXXX   and being further patient :  1.   I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN REIMBURSE  D 2. HER PROMISE TO ME THAT RESOLUTION WOULD OCCUR BY THE NINTH IS OBVIOUSLY BELOGNA AND THERE IS STILL NO REIMBURSEMENT OR CORRECTIVE ACTION IN PLACE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.\n3. BOA HAS ASKED THE BUREAU FOR MORE TIME, BUT CLEARLY BY BOA 's OWN ADMISSION THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE ANOTHER REVIEW   AND RULED NOT TO PAY IT AS DENOTED IN THE LETTER I RECEIVED. THUS BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED AS APPLIED TO THE TIMELINE, BOA 'S DECISION TO REMAIN AWARE OF MISSED OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER SOME BELIEF THAT THE CONTINUED DELAY IS ACCEPTABLE.     I FIND IT MORE DISTURBING THAT BOA 'S CONTINUED DENIAL WHEN BOA HAS UNDISPUTED  PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE CLAIM IS LEGITIMATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REG E. ( THE ONLY REQUIREMENT BEING TIMELY ) CONTAINS A CONFLICT OF INFORMATIO N BETWEEN SUE 'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TODAY AND THE LETTER I RECEIVED TODAY    XXXX      DATED   XXXX   XXXX  , SAYING THE SECONDARY EVALUATION OF THE CLAIM HAD BEEN SATISFIED.     BECAUSE OF THE WILLFUL AND WANTON DISREGARD OF THE FACTS OF THIS TRANSACTION, AND THE CHOICE OF BOA TO CONTINUE TO DENY THE CLAIM, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOW IN VIOLATION OF THE DTPA WHICH IN THE LEAST PROVIDES THAT A {$400.00} REIMBURSEMENT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTIBLE, BUT RATHER  TREBLE  DAMAGES OR IN THIS CASE {$1200.00} BECAUSE THE BANK HAD NOTICE AND CHOSE WILLFULLY AND WANTONLY TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND FAIL TO REIMBURSE THE ACCOUNT.     I NOW BELIEVE THAT SUE 'S CONTINUED DELAY AS REQUESTED TODAY, FURTHER ESCALATES MY DTPA CLAIM TO A WILLFUL AND WANTON STANDARD BUT NOW ADDING WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.     HERE   XXXX   XXXX    NEW  OF MY COMPLAINT, NEW THAT BOA WAS IN REGULATORY VIOLATION BY FAILING TO PROVIDE RELIEF WITHIN  XXXX  BUSINESS DAYS, AND HAS FURTHER DELAYED THE PROCESS BY \" NEEDING MORE TIME TO RESPOND, WHEN CLEARLY THE LETTER MAILED WITH A   XXXX   XXXX   DATE IS  PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT B OA IS NOT INVESTIGATING FURTHER AS STATED. THUS  XXXX  KNOWINGLY FURTHER DEPRIVED ME OF MY ALREADY TARDY PAVEMENT AND THUS SUBJECTED HER ORGANIZATION TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ADDITION TO MY NOW  TREBLE  DAMAGES.     PLEASE BE ADVISED IF I DO NOT RECEIVE  TREBLE D AMAGES IN MY ACCOUNT BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS TOMORROW, I DO INTEND WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO SEEK A COURT ORDER, UNDER THE DTPA AND BECAUSE I AM SO INCONVENIENCED BY THE ENTIRETY OF THE EVENT, I ASSURE YOU I WILL MAKE CERTAIN THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE ASSESSED WHERE NEEDED.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-05-15T13:43:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"92262","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2479378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-05-09T06:21:08.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On   XXXX   XXXX  , I finally made contact with the regulation <em>compliance</em> person from BOA   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , who informed me that she would act as a  liaison be tween the bank and I <em>throughout</em> the complaint process and that she would have the situation resolved by her own decided resolution date of   XXXX   XXXX  ."]},"sort":[8.272053,"2479378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3268014","_score":8.023741,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I write to allege that USBank is engaged in deceptive business practices with respect to opening consumer, business checking accounts, and XXXX accounts. \n\nI am a practicing attorney in XXXX. My law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), previously held an Operational Account and an XXXX account, at USBank. \nXXXX practices in the area of recreational cannabis compliance. Specifically, we most commonly defend licensees from administrative actions initiated by various regulatory authorities, and advise licensees on regulatory compliance in efforts to minimize the likelihood of negative enforcement actions. \n\nXXXX was formed in XXXX of XXXX, and cannabis has been the firms practice area through this entire period, up until and as of this filing. \nI opened up a business checking account with USBank in XXXX. At that time, I disclosed the information, essentially, as contained in the preceding paragraph, including the disclosure of our involvement in cannabis. \n\nFurther, in XX/XX/XXXX, my partner, XXXX XXXX, joined XXXX and was added to the business checking account. We visited the branch located at the address I indicated on the complaint. Once again, we disclosed our practice area revolved around cannabis, and again, the account was updated without issue. \n\nSometime in XXXX of XXXX, XXXX XXXX visited the USBank branch to make either a deposit or a withdrawal from our firms XXXX account. At this time, Ms. XXXX was not a signor on the XXXX account. Apparently, USBank would not conduct the transaction unless Ms. XXXX agreed to add herself to the XXXX account that is in XXXX Law Groups name. Ms. XXXX acquiesced and the banker, XXXX XXXX, proceeded to add her to the account without notifying me. In so doing, he then asked her what about our specific practice area. \n\nUp to this point, aside from account opening, and adding Ms. XXXX to the account, I had visited USBank or had contact with USBank on approximately ( at least ) 25 different occasions at no less than five branches throughout the XXXX area. These contacts ranged in purpose from simple, counter transactions, to applying for a home mortgage, and providing follow up documentation. Relatedly, I also refinanced my home with USBank. \n\nAt every one of these occasions of contact I disclosed the precise nature of my firms practice area, which is to say, that XXXX represents cannabis licensees. At no time during over two dozen points of contact, every one of which included disclosure from me regarding XXXX practice area, did any banker, teller, or other personnel raise any issues with it. \n\nHowever, as a result of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX visit, XXXX XXXX updated, in my view improperly and perhaps unlawfully, our USBank account profile, flagging it for review due to our representation of cannabis licensees. We subsequently learned the account would be frozen, but managed to close the account before any funds were withheld. \nI have taken this issue up with every level of management to which I can contact. These include the branch assistant manager, as well as the district manager. Today, XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX, who calls himself the Regional President. Prior to this call, I asked, essentially, two questions, which Ive reproduced below with his explanations. \n\n1. How could USBank possibly justify adding someone to a trust account without the original signors express authorization or even knowledge? \n\nXXXX XXXX claims that it was proper to add XXXX as a signor to the XXXX XXXX account without the original signors permission. For clarity, while Ms. XXXX was added to the operational account in XXXX of XXXX, she had not been added to the XXXX account before her XX/XX/XXXX visit. \n\nHere, Mr. XXXX position was that because XXXX was listed as a governor on the Secretary of State website, then she was properly added to the trust account. \nMr. XXXX explanation, if true, demonstrates USBank is not treating XXXX  accounts with the proper amount of care required by its agreement with XXXX. Such account maintenance practices are reckless, because the Secretary of State information page can be updated by literally anyone without any ID or other verification requirements. Thus, one could improperly add their name to an entity, and then, according to USBanks policies, be added to the trust account. It would be shocking to learn that this lax standard of care conformed with XXXX requirements. \n\nMr. XXXX told me he had run this issue by USBanks legal team and the feeling was that they were probably in compliance with the state bar. \nIn sum, Mr. XXXX has stated that the USBank branches in his region will not change policy based on these feelings though to be quite clear, Mr. XXXX offered absolutely no legal or even policy support for these feelings. \nSecondly, I asked USBANK 2. If Mr. XXXX acted appropriately ( as theyve repeatedly maintained ) How could it be that no banker ever raised this issue previously? \nUSBank personnel has assiduously lined up behind the conduct of XXXX XXXX. Prior to my call today, I expected Mr. XXXX to tell me that, in essence, Mr. XXXX had essentially misunderstood our line of work, and mistakenly flagged our account, thus this was a regrettable, technical mistake, and nothing more. \nThis expectation was built upon the fact that, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, we learned our account was being closed, and during this business crises the assistant manager willingly and immediately unflagged our account and took every step necessary to ensure our banking relationship would continue. In other words, in the immediate aftermath of the consequences of Mr. XXXX actions, USBank was quick to acknowledge the issue. Indeed, the branch even disbursed the funds in our account without issue, thus apparently involving itself further in a deeply problematic area. However, in the days that followed, management began to close ranks around this issue, and Mr. XXXX conduct. \n\nSpecifically, Mr. XXXX sought information regarding our firms practice area in the guise of a friendly conversation. He never disclosed that the purpose for the conversation was to update our profile, and never disclosed it could result in account closure. \n\nAdditionally, to reiterate, our firms limited, and lawful, connection to cannabis licensees was freely volunteered on over two dozen occasions to various USBank personnel without a single instance of said personnel raising this issue, or apparently flagging our account. \n\nI raised this topic, the fact that other personnel had not disclosed our firms connection to cannabis as an issue, with Mr. XXXX via an email to him on XX/XX/XXXX. However, during our call today, he falsely claimed this was new information, and that he would have to follow up. In reality, since we first became aware of the account closure, I have alerted every manager to whom I have spoken to the fact that dozens of its personnel were given this information previously and yet took no action. Yet, every manager,  including Mr. XXXX, has treated this as new information. \n\nNonetheless, Mr. XXXX made clear, at least, that he had not looked into it. Thus, because he did look into other aspects of my complaint contained in my email to him and about which he presumably felt on firmer footing, I am left to conclude he intentionally failed to seek information on this subject. \n\nIn sum, in addition to mishandling XXXX accounts, USBank is engaged in deceptive behavior with respect to how it treats business accounts. First, it intentionally disguises questions intended for regulatory compliance, and, if these questions are conditional to continuing account relationships, it similarly fails to disclose such condition. \n\nRegarding the next part of my complaint, to be clear, the heart of my complaint is not that USBank takes issue with our firms connection to cannabis. Mr. XXXX seemed keen, if not desperate, to reiterate this same point ad nauseum. However, my complaint, as I repeatedly told him, is that USBank intentionally failed to disclose this fact to me for over four years. \n\nUSBank either acted deceptively in failing to alert me to the fact that my account could be subject to review, or alternatively, deceptively took action against my account in flagging it, when a law firm is not the sort of business intended to be covered by its cannabis banking policies. In other words, if Mr. XXXX is correct in defending Mr. XXXX, then his entire region, and the region for which he is responsible, is engaged in a pattern of behavior contrary to this stated policy, and is doing so deceptively, and causing damage to consumers such as myself, and my firm, in the process. \n\nTo be clear, Mr. XXXX defended XXXX XXXX, but failed to defend his regions failure to notify us of this issue during the dozens of prior contacts with USBank that occurred before Mr. XXXX added someone to a trust account without the signors permission, and flagged our account in the process. \n\nFinally, Mr. XXXX doubted that we had properly disclosed our practice area. Therefore, I am prepared to provide a list of individuals to whom either XXXX or myself, or both told this information. Most notably, this list will likely include XXXX XXXX, who our records indicate added XXXX to our account in XXXX, two years before using the same information to flag the same account.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-12T16:20:49.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"981XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3268014","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2019-06-07T22:41:38.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX practices in the area of recreational cannabis <em>compliance</em>. Specifically, we most commonly defend licensees from administrative actions <em>initiated</em> by various regulatory authorities, and advise licensees on regulatory <em>compliance</em> in efforts to minimize the likelihood of negative enforcement actions. \n\nXXXX was formed in XXXX of XXXX, and cannabis has been the firms practice area through this entire period, up until and as of this filing."]},"sort":[8.023741,"3268014"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21625117","_score":8.006486,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is filed as a supplement to complaint number XXXX, filed XX/XX/year>, and should be reviewed in conjunction with that record. \n\nThis filing addresses the bad faith resolution conduct that occurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, in the direct aftermath of the original complaint and culminating in EarnIn 's unilateral federal filing characterizing this matter as finally resolved. \n\nThe Invitation On XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM EarnIn 's XXXX of Customer Care personally and explicitly invited me to submit questions before any further steps were taken. That invitation was not incidental. It was extended by the most senior customer care executive at the company, directed personally to me, and created a reasonable and documented expectation that my questions would inform whatever resolution process followed. \nI took that invitation at its word. \n\nThe Questions At XXXX PM XXXX minutes after her invitation I submitted my first question. I asked the VP to clarify her understanding of the current state of this matter before any resolution was finalized. That request was not adversarial. It was a direct and deliberate attempt to ensure that whatever EarnIn put on paper reflected the actual and complete scope of what I had experienced. It was not answered. \n\nThe following morning at XXXX AM I submitted a second question asking directly and specifically whether EarnIn was working on a resolution that could be processed before the end of the weekend. That question had one purpose to allow me to make informed decisions about next steps based on the company 's actual position. It was not answered. \n\nThat same evening at XXXX PM exactly XXXX hours after the XXXX  's invitation I submitted a final communication. I noted explicitly that neither question had been acknowledged. I stated that the silence was preventing me from making informed decisions. I asked for nothing beyond confirmation of where things stood. It was not answered. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX The following day, XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM, EarnIn filed a formal response with this federal body characterizing this matter as finally resolved with a {$1000.00} monetary credit. That filing was submitted while all three of my questions sat unanswered. It was not informed by a single piece of information I would have provided had the XXXX  responded. It references a figure discussed at an earlier point in this matter before the full scope of documented harm was established, before the enrollment misrepresentation was formally raised on XX/XX/XXXX, and before the correspondence that followed the original filing produced additional admissions and acknowledgments that now form a material part of this record. \n\nThe XXXX of Customer Care invited dialogue. The dialogue was never permitted to occur. EarnIn then took a figure from an earlier and incomplete point in this matter, filed it with a federal regulator without discussion, and characterized it as final resolution. \n\nHad the XXXX  responded genuinely to any of the XXXX communications submitted within her own invitation window, the company would have had a complete and accurate account of where this matter stood at the time of filing. That information would have informed a resolution offer grounded in the actual scope of harm. Instead a predetermined conclusion was filed with a federal regulator while the dialogue that would have prevented it was being deliberately withheld. \n\nIt should also be noted that a formal complaint regarding a material misrepresentation at enrollment was submitted directly through EarnIn 's official complaint channels on XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM approximately XXXX hours before their federal filing. Had the XXXX of Customer Care continued the direct correspondence she personally initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, the existence of that complaint would have surfaced naturally through dialogue before any federal response was filed. She did not continue that correspondence. The complaint was neither acknowledged nor incorporated into EarnIn 's federal response submitted the following day. \n\nExecutive Visibility and Silence The company 's General Counsel and Chief Compliance XXXX were copied on the correspondence containing each of these unanswered questions. These are the individuals whose receipt and personal review of this matter is confirmed in writing by EarnIn 's own representative. They had the authority to respond. They had the information to respond. They had the professional obligation to respond. They chose silence throughout the entire XXXX hour invitation window and through the filing that followed it. \n\nThe decision to file a resolution with this federal body while that correspondence sat unacknowledged was made within their authority and under their oversight. That sequence invitation extended, questions submitted, senior executives copied, silence maintained, federal filing made is preserved in its entirety and is currently under legal review. \n\nThe Public Contradiction and the Prior Warnings Beginning XX/XX/year>, I delivered explicit written warnings to EarnIn 's executive and legal leadership that public documentation of this matter was forthcoming. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM I stated explicitly that I was preparing a complete timestamped account of this matter based entirely on EarnIn 's own written record, to be shared in the form of a series of video essays directed at EarnIn 's target audience. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM I stated that regulatory filings were prepared and public service announcements were ready to post, held only by my continued good faith. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM I stated that absent executive engagement every document, admission, timestamp, and acknowledgment in this record would find its audience. \nThose warnings were delivered XXXX to XXXX days before EarnIn filed their federal resolution. \n\nA public social media post containing the exact chat log at the center of this matter was published on approximately XX/XX/year> XXXX days before that filing on a thread that had accumulated over XXXX views by the time EarnIn filed. \nBetween XXXX and XXXX hours after filing their federal resolution characterizing this matter as closed, EarnIn 's verified public account engaged with that XXXX day old post as though encountering this situation for the first time. They expressed that the situation was something they take seriously and stated they would make it right immediately. \n\nThose XXXX positions matter finally resolved and we will make it right immediately were expressed by the same company within the same afternoon. XXXX was filed with a federal regulator. The other was performed publicly for thousands of viewers. The post they responded to had been live for XXXX days. The warnings that preceded it had been delivered in writing XXXX to XXXX days before their filing. Their engagement with that post as new information whether the product of genuine ignorance or deliberate performance directly contradicts EarnIn 's characterization of their internal process as thorough and their resolution as final. \n\nThe Resolution Offer Itself The {$1000.00} figure EarnIn filed does not reflect any review of actual damages. It was not the product of any discussion. It was not informed by a single answer to a single question submitted within the XXXX 's own invitation window. It was calculated in a vacuum and filed unilaterally with a federal regulator while the consumer it purports to compensate was actively waiting for a response to questions that would have informed that very calculation. \n\nFurthermore EarnIn can not claim remedial credit for the return of the original paycheck amount. Their own representatives stated explicitly and repeatedly across multiple interactions that the return of those funds was an automatic process executed by their partner banking institution entirely outside EarnIn 's control. The return does not address a single consequence of the period of documented financial harm that followed the misrouting on XX/XX/year>. \n\nPlease note : The points raised in this filing are not simply my interpretation of the events of XX/XX/year>. They are points that emerged directly through EarnIn 's own conflict resolution process acknowledged, confirmed, and in several instances formally admitted by EarnIn 's own representatives, supervisors, and executive leadership across an entirely written correspondence record spanning XXXX days. \n\nThey are brought to the attention of this federal body because internal dialogue despite being initiated, documented, and pursued in good faith at every stage was effectively abandoned on multiple occasions by EarnIn across that same record. \nEarnIn will now demonstrate through their response to this federal body either a contrasting or a comparable approach to the pattern documented here, with whatever urgency they deem this matter deserves.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-27T14:17:36.000Z","issue":"Confusing or missing disclosures","sub_product":"Earned wage access","zip_code":"20906","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21625117","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Activehours","date_received":"2026-04-27T13:46:15.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It was a direct and deliberate attempt to ensure that whatever EarnIn put on paper reflected the actual and complete scope of <em>what</em> I had experienced. It was not answered. \n\nThe following morning at XXXX AM I submitted a <em>second</em> question asking directly and specifically whether EarnIn was working on a resolution that could be processed before the end of the weekend. That question had one purpose to allow me to make informed decisions about next steps based on the company 's actual position."]},"sort":[8.006486,"21625117"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14783545","_score":7.418483,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Attorney Misconduct and Consumer Rights Violations To : Nebraska Counsel for Discipline, Nebraska XXXX XXXX XXXX, Nebraska Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), XXXX, Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), as well as the Minnesota XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( OLPR ), Minnesota Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX I. Summary and Jurisdiction This complaint details a pattern of unethical conduct, procedural violations, and unlawful consumer abuse most recently by multiple attorneys not limited to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX Firm as well as a prior law firm with multiple attorneys from XXXX and XXXX across XXXX cases. All operating out of both Minnesota and Nebraska representing XXXX XXXX XXXX Services. The misconduct spans multiple areas : legal ethics, XXXX discrimination, FDCPA and FCRA violations, and judicial abuse. Therefore, this complaint is submitted to multiple appropriate bodies for investigation and immediate action. \nXXXX. Parties Involved - XXXX XXXX Initiating attorney for the duplicate case refiled, XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX Filed improper XX/XX/XXXX blanket denial and retaliatory XX/XX/XXXX motion to amend responses nearly XXXX days after the fact on a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. \n- XXXX XXXX Appeared XX/XX/XXXX, in place of XXXX XXXX, who failed to appear, declared himself as the Lead Attorney and sole counsel from the firm going forward, allowed XXXX unauthorized filings in violation of cease and desist that he acknowledged was in place and on record. \nXXXX. Chronology and Procedural Misconduct XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX Firm refiles CI XXXX XXXX XXXX under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX XXXX, despite improper standing and no tradeline in the locked, frozen, and fraud alerted credit files despite unauthorized access. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Defendant files counterclaims, XXXX violations, renewed motions, retaliation notices, disciplinary requests. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX knowingly files an improper general denial, violating XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Case dismissed with prejudice. No compliance at all throughout for what they initiated for the second time. No motions by XXXX ruled on still preserved and pending. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Court hearing XXXX confirms on record he is the lead attorney and is the sole counsel going forward. He threatened the defendant on record to cease the pursuit of counterclaims or they will refile the case yet again. XXXX continuance granted for stipulation on my pending motions and counterclaims. No stipulation or settlement was attempted by the Plaintiff or counsel in violation of the XXXX continuance request causing unnecessary delay and continuing harm. \nXX/XX/XXXX : nearly XXXX days after the hearing giving them additional time to respond. Defendant files motion for the hearing to rule on pending motions per the XXXX 's order. It also outlined ongoing misconduct and continued violations. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX files retaliatory amendment motion without service. Court grants on a Friday. Defendant was never provided the motion nor had the opportunity to object to the obvious retaliatory act prior to it being ordered. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Defendant files Motion to Strike citing systemic XXXX, due process, and ethics violations. \nIV. Legal and Ethical Violations Committed XXXX but not limited to : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Lack of candor toward the tribunal XXXX Unfairness toward opposing party XXXX / XXXX Lack of competence and diligence XXXX General misconduct Title XXXX of the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Denial of access to justice due to XXXX XXXX C.F.R. XXXX Discriminatory court access XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Harassment and failure to validate debt ( FDCPA ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) Failure to investigate disputed debts ( FCRA ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims and contentions ( XXXX 's blanket XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal ( XXXX 's complicity XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Respect for rights of third persons ( XXXX retaliation ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX Violation of civil rights under XXXX of law ( systemic XXXX process denial ) Bivens v. XXXX Unknown Named Agents, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Right to constitutional remedies when federal actors are complicit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Due process rights for pro se litigants must be respected XXXX XXXX. XXXX Prohibits discrimination in public services ( Title XXXX XXXX ) XXXX U.S.C. XXXX Section XXXX XXXX XXXX, applies to federally funded programs including courts XXXX XXXX. XXXX Obligation to ensure effective communication with XXXX individuals The following Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct have also been violated by Attorneys XXXX and XXXX and should serve as procedural grounds for formal discipline : Rule XXXX ( Competence ) Rule XXXX ( Meritorious Claims and Contentions ) Rule XXXX ( Candor to the Tribunal ) Rule XXXX ( Respect for Rights of Third Persons ) Rule XXXX ( Misconduct ) The following Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct ( MRPC ) violations XXXX also include but are not limited to : Rule XXXX ( c ) - Disobeying a court order Rule XXXX ( a ) - Unfairness to opposing party Rule XXXX - Truthfulness in statements Rule XXXX ( d ) - Conduct prejudicial to justice Rule XXXX ( a ) - Violation through others Rule XXXX - Lack of competence Rule XXXX - Expediting litigation Rule XXXX ( g ) - Discrimination or harassment Rule XXXX ( c ) - Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation Rule XXXX ( b ) - Responsibilities of a supervisory lawyer Rule XXXX ( a ) Confidentiality These violations show intentional, repeated disregard for ethical and procedural duties and merit immediate professional sanction. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX These actions that have now been allowed to go on for over a year and are fully evidenced across XXXX court records and have inflicted serious mental, emotional, physical, and financial harm on a vulnerable pro se litigant, while the attorneys exploited procedural gaps and weaponized litigation. The chilling effect of these lawsuits now prevents the Defendant from disputing further inaccurate credit entries for fear of immediate retaliatory litigation. This is a continuing injury and results in sustained, compounding financial and emotional harm. \nIt also undermines public confidence in legal institutions and the equal application of law. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX Firm and its attorneys appear to be continuing the same unlawful practices previously employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, another firm that represented XXXX Funding in the related cases. This includes a disturbing pattern of constitutional violations, denial of due process, and disregard for the civil and XXXX rights of the Defendant. Despite repeated notifications to courts and regulators, no entity has taken meaningful action to address or restrain this coordinated abuse of legal process and perpetrated throughout the court record of XXXX cases including the current case part XXXX of CI XXXX XXXX XXXX involving my properly filed and preserved counterclaims. \nThis abuse is not isolated. It reflects a broader systemic pattern whereby XXXX XXXX and its agents weaponize the legal system against consumers, particularly vulnerable and pro se individuals, through attorney-swapping, serial filings, forum shopping, and retaliation in response to protected activity. These practices, now employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, mirror those previously used by XXXX XXXX XXXX and warrant urgent oversight as ongoing, coordinated legal terrorism. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, highlighting the timeline of the most recent intentional harm that reflects extensive procedural neglect and retaliatory conduct : XXXX days since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed on XX/XX/XXXX including complete non-compliance and failure to appear then voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. All motions filed still pending and unanswered. \nXXXX days since case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed on XX/XX/XXXX simultaneously also with complete non-compliance and failure to appear and then voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. All motions and filings have gone unaddressed and remain pending. \nXXXX  days since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was refiled by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX under improper standing. \nXXXX days since Defendants counterclaims were filed. \nXXXX days since Attorney XXXX XXXX submitted an improper blanket denial violating XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX and deemed admitted per Nebraska law. \nXXXX days since the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, yet still revived in retaliation to legally protected actions. \nXXXX  days since XXXX XXXX confirmed on record at the hearing on XX/XX/XXXX that he alone would represent the XXXX going forward to eliminate the confusion by all the unauthorized attorney hopping. \nXXXX  days between Defendants XX/XX/XXXX filing exposing these failures and Plaintiffs retaliatory amendment to retroactively go back nearly XXXX days and now attempt to properly respond to the counterclaims. \nXXXX days from Plaintiffs improper motion on XX/XX/XXXX to this filing date during which time no service or objection opportunity was permitted regarding the plaintiff 's motion for leave to file amended answer to defendants counterclaim. \n\nThis chronology demonstrates a pattern of systemic discrimination and retaliation. The XXXX has failed to rule on any of Defendants properly filed motions for over a year, while allowing Plaintiffs unauthorized and procedurally invalid retaliatory filings within hours. \nThe Courts willingness to grant ex parte orders, ignore pending motions, dismissals, and accept clearly retaliatory filings while refusing to enforce its own record has made it complicit in denying this Defendant equal access to justice. This violates core due process protections under the XXXX Amendment and XXXX Title XXXX. Such imbalanced treatment of a vulnerable pro se litigant constitutes a denial of due process, as well as a direct violation of protections under the Americans with XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \n\nAs of the date of this complaint, Plaintiff and its legal representatives including multiple law firms have committed over XXXX documented procedural, statutory, and constitutional violations. These include violations of the XXXX, FDCPA, FCRA, and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated and escalating nature of these acts carried out on court record and in direct retaliation for protected filings constitutes continued intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED ). Defendant continues to suffer severe harm, loss of livelihood, decreased quality of life, deteriorating health, and fear of legal retaliation for asserting fundamental rights. Cumulative damages now exceed {$750000.00}, supported by continuing injury theory and stacking of statutory remedies under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( FDCPA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( emotional distress in civil rights claims ), Doe XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( statutory damages ), and State ex rel. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( affirming cumulative statutory penalties where violations are ongoing and willful ). \n\nVI. XXXX Requested XXXX. Investigate and discipline XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and others involved for misconduct. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX and XXXX for possible systemic violations. \nXXXX. Refer to DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX systemic discrimination. \nXXXX. XXXX and publicly censure the individual attorneys for their extensive misconduct. \nXXXX. Require restitution or corrective measures where applicable. \nXXXX. Require improved XXXX compliance and service of process. \nXXXX. Accept this complaint as a continued notice of pattern of abuse for future consumer alerts. \nThis complaint is submitted under oath and penalty of perjury to multiple agencies empowered to investigate legal malpractice, ethical violations, consumer fraud, and civil rights abuses, including those involving XXXX Title XXXX. The undersigned respectfully invokes the jurisdiction of all listed bodies and seeks a formal inquiry, discipline, and any enforcement remedies appropriate under state, federal, or professional codes. \nI, as a pro se litigant, have been expected to meet every procedural and substantive standard or face judgement, while Plaintiff represented by licensed counsel has been permitted to bypass deadlines, ignore filings, and violate court protocol without consequence. This disparity is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional. \nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and abilities. \n\nExecuted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T02:01:58.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"690XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14783545","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.","date_received":"2025-07-21T01:53:39.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["No <em>compliance</em> at all <em>throughout</em> for <em>what</em> they <em>initiated</em> for the <em>second</em> <em>time</em>. No motions by XXXX ruled on still preserved and pending. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Court hearing XXXX confirms on record he is the lead attorney and is the sole counsel going forward. He threatened the defendant on record to cease the pursuit of counterclaims or they will refile the case yet again. XXXX continuance granted for stipulation on my pending motions and counterclaims."]},"sort":[7.418483,"14783545"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7952981","_score":5.53788,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns a series of alleged mishandlings and communication failures by Fay Servicing , LLC, regarding my mortgage account and associated loss mitigation efforts. Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have been actively engaged in attempting to prevent the foreclosure of my property through various loss mitigation avenues, including loan modification requests, applications for assistance through the Texas Homeowner Assistance Fund ( TXHAF ), and filing for bankruptcy. \n\nThe key allegations are as follows : Lack of Responsiveness : Throughout multiple interactions, Fay Servicing has exhibited a pattern of failing to respond to communications and requests in a timely and effective manner. This includes not acknowledging receipt of critical documents and failing to provide necessary updates on the status of loss mitigation applications. \n\nMismanagement of Payments : Payments made towards the reinstatement amount, specifically a wire transfer of {$3800.00}, were not reflected in the account in a timely fashion, leading to inaccurate account statements and impacting eligibility for assistance programs. \n\nInaccurate Reporting : There have been multiple instances of discrepancies in the reinstatement amounts provided by Fay Servicing. These inconsistencies have resulted in the denial of the TXHAF grant, which had a cap of {$65000.00}, due to reported amounts exceeding this limit. \n\nLack of Transparency : There has been a significant lack of clarity and transparency regarding the status of assistance applications, the reasons for the denial of loss mitigation options, and the criteria used for decision-making. \n\nNegligence in Handling Assistance Programs : Despite the availability of the HAF program as a potential avenue for loss mitigation, Fay Servicing failed to consider it as an option in their communications or include it in the loss mitigation analysis until after the program had closed to new applicants. \n\nNon-Compliance with Requests for Information : Despite multiple qualified written requests for a complete account history and other important account details, Fay Servicing has either claimed non-receipt of such requests or failed to provide the requested information within the regulatory time frame. \n\nPotential Manual Alteration of Account Figures : There is an allegation that manual changes to the account figures have been made by Fay Servicing representatives, which have adversely affected the eligibility for grant assistance.\n\nDismissal of Filed Complaints : A formal complaint filed with the Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending resulted in a determination of \" insufficient evidence, '' despite the provision of what I believe to be clear evidence of the lender 's violations.\n\nIn light of these issues, this complaint seeks a thorough investigation by the CFPB into Fay Servicing 's practices, an audit of my account, and a review of the loss mitigation process to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to address the potential harm caused by these alleged actions. \n\nTimeline of Events : Timeline of Events : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX, Extension XXXX, an account manager with Fay Servicing. Requested a reinstatement amount and expressed interest in a loan modification. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a letter from Fay outlining the loss mitigation application, stating that all required documents must be submitted by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Submitted an application for the TXHAF program. TXHAF representative said they will request for the foreclosure to be delayed, but ultimately it is lenders choice. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX : Uploaded completed loss mitigation application and documents to XXXX, received email confirmation of document receipt. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX : Called XXXX to confirm document receipt and discussed the deadline for application. To provide tangible evidence of the deadline date mentioned in the letter, I emailed a copy of the letter sent by XXXX to her email address at XXXX. Application shows denied in the portal with no reason. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  : Called XXXX again, and she indicated her intention to help by forwarding my request for a loan modification to two other managers named XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted XXXX to inquire about the progress of the loss mitigation application. I also uploaded a copy of the deadline letter to the portal, ensuring that the other managers had access for their review. The portal 's activity history confirms that the submission was reviewed but subsequently denied. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : I called XXXX at XXXX XXXX to inquire if she could continue to advocate on my behalf and have the second manager review my case. However, the portal records show that the request for loss mitigation was reviewed and denied on the same day. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent an email to XXXX requesting updates but received no response. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Filed for bankruptcy as a last-ditch effort to prevent foreclosure. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : Requested an updated reinstatement amount from Fay. Bankruptcy attorney 's paralegal also contacted Fay for an updated reinstatement figure on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay claimed to have contacted TXHAF to verify records for the HAF program. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email from TXHAF informing that Fay has been funded and to continue to proceed with a loan modification program. Account marked as a loan modification program, preventing them to fund the account for a full reinstatement due to incorrect type of program. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with XXXX XXXX ( Account Manager ) about the designation issue, requesting the account be changed to a reinstatement program. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : Continued contacting Fay for an update on the reinstatement amount and the program designation. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : Contacted TXHAF to inquire about the program status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Uploaded the amount due for XXXX, sent an email to the case worker regarding the escrow issue. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Fay 's representative for XXXX minutes, inquiring about the progress of the HAF program and the program designation change from a loan modification to a reinstatement. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The program was finally changed to the reinstatement program. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX from TXHAF left a message expressing that Fay was not responding. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Wrote a letter to XXXX explaining concerns and inability to expedite the process further, uploaded the letter to the portal. Also contacted Fay to urge them to communicate with TXHAF. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email notifying that the TXHAF grant had been denied due to exceeding the {$65000.00} allowance limit. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay, who provided a verbal reinstatement cost of {$66000.00}, which exceeded the {$65000.00} allowance by {$1500.00}. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Wired {$3800.00} to Fay to bring the account 's total below the {$65000.00} limit based on the figures provided verbally by Fay. Uploaded an image of the wire proof. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay stated they have contacted TXHAF to confirm {$3800.00}. Bankruptcy court date to continue with the bankruptcy or not. I have requested the attorney to dismiss the bankruptcy because TXHAF will approve the grant as long as it is under the {$65000.00} limit. The {$3800.00} will bring it under the allowance limit. Fay stated in writing that they spoke to TXHAF and confirmed they have received the {$3800.00}. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay, who stated there was no record in the system showing the wire transfer of {$3800.00}. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX : Made subsequent calls to Fay, and each time, they stated they had not received the wire transfer. \n\nXXXX. XXXX statement : Indicates that {$64000.00} must be wired by XX/XX/XXXX to bring the loan current. XXXX also indicate {$63000.00} was previously due for account to be reinstated. This was also confirmed by a represented that that was the amount that was due and was good up to XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay to request an update on the grant status. Received no confirmation from TXHAF regarding the {$3800.00}. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay to inform them that TXHAF was still awaiting the reinstatement figures to complete the application. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TXHAF updated the reinstatement amount provided by Fay to be {$68000.00} to reinstate the account. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email informing that the TXHAF grant had been denied. The requested updated reinstatement amount by Fay now stands at {$73000.00}. It is important to note a Fay represented confirmed they had manually changed figures on the statement which resulted in the grant to be denied. \n\nXXXX. XXXX mortgage statement : Displays {$71000.00}, still excluding the {$3800.00} credit that should reflect in the unapplied suspense account. \n\nXXXX. XXXX mortgage statement : Fails to show the {$3800.00} credit, and the reinstatement cost had been reduced to {$68000.00}. The advanceable corporate advances has now been remove after the grant denial from the reinstatement figure. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The mortgage statement finally shows the {$3800.00} payment, wired XXXX months earlier, resulting in a reinstatement cost of {$71000.00}. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX from Fay contacted me to inquire about my intentions with the property but ended the call abruptly upon hearing the word \" attorney. '' XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay initiated foreclosure proceedings on my property. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Applied for the TXHAF grant just before the closure of new applications. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TXHAF confirmed the application was completed. Filed a formal complaint with the Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending against Fay Servicing for lack of transparency and communication issues. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent a qualified written request ( QWR ) to Fay Servicing for a complete account history and other details, which was confirmed delivered by USPS, but XXXX reported not having received it. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email from the Texas Homeowner Assistance Fund Team indicating that the application had moved to the final stage of funding and was waiting for a response from Fay Servicing. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Called Fay for an update on HAF and the QWR but was informed there was no record of the request. Sent another QWR to Fay Servicing. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Communicated the ongoing issues with Fay and TXHAF, who advised to continue dealing directly with Fay Servicing. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent a letter to Fay Servicing urging them to respond to TXHAF to finalize the application XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent another letter to Fay Servicing requesting an update on the HAF application and to expedite the process. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Fay 's representative, and discussed the delayed reflection of the {$3800.00} payment and confirmed discrepancies in previous reinstatement amounts. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Completed a loss mitigation application through Fay 's portal. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TXHAF portal updated with a reinstatement amount request from Fay of {$89000.00}. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a letter from XXXX XXXX, a new account manager at Fay, indicating ineligibility for loss mitigation options and discrepancies in the reinstatement amount. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a letter from XXXX XXXX at Fay stating that a completed loss mitigation application was on file and an update would be provided within 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay sent a letter indicating a need for additional time to respond to the QWR sent on XX/XX/XXXX, and promised a written response within XXXX business days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Filed an appeal to the loss mitigation application denial with Fay Servicing. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a response to the QWR from Fay Servicing, which contained multiple discrepancies from previous statements that was provided to The Texas Department of Loan and Savings","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-05T23:49:57.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"75068","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7952981","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fay Servicing, LLC","date_received":"2023-12-05T22:49:59.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Non-<em>Compliance</em> with Requests for Information : Despite multiple qualified written requests for a complete account history and other important account details, Fay Servicing has either claimed non-receipt of such requests or failed to provide the requested information within the regulatory <em>time</em> frame."]},"sort":[5.53788,"7952981"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14496546","_score":5.129274,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is in regards to Penny Mac, I have held a mortgage with them since XXXX, In XXXX was the first time I had ever been late with payments. My identity was stolen through the equifax breach, my significant other of XXXX yrs passed and then I had to fight his XXXX boys in which I raised ; to save my house from being partitioned. I accomplished all that but during all that and having to raise XXXX for payoff I got behind on my mortgage. I received help through Indiana HOPE they paid 6 months to get the mortgage current at the same time I was getting a modification. I was approved and went onto the set payments, as I look back now not sure why my payment went up from {$610.00} to $ XXXX month considering any back payments were paid in full by the HOPE program. In XXXX of XXXX I was very sick and got behind on my mortgage. I contacted Penny Mac in XXXX to find a solution to this at that time I was behind 2 months. I was told to put in for a modification, I explained that technically I was on a modification and Penny Mac told me to do another one ; this is what I did. Now I knew that Federal Law requires the servicer to wait until the loan is 120 day delinquent before moving forward into pre-foreclosure status. I have not up to this point received any letter or notice of a default or anything encouraging me to obtain assistance from a mortgage foreclosure counselor, or to inform me of my rights. ( ind code 32-30-10.5-8 ( XXXX ) Throughout the process of the modification I was notified three different times that I needed to send in my profit and loss statement. I did send it ; with the application and every time they notified me they needed it, .The last notification I got I went online to check my documents that had been submitted, well everything was gone. I called asked if they received the last profit and loss, was told no. I told her that I went to submit it again that I could not the document upload was disabled and so was the email messaging. I had to snail mail it and she gave me a email address to send to as well. The email address was wrong because I called the very next day to make sure the email was received it was not ; come to find out the address I was given was wrong. \nNow Every time I contacted Penny Mac I never talked to the same person, I was asked every time if I was still in the home, I would tell them you don't know? You are charging me {$20.00} property inspection every month sometimes every XXXX weeks. \nFast forward to XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied a modification yet never received notification until XX/XX/XXXX, when I called to find out the reason I could not get a straight answer, I was told from one person that I was denied because I defaulted on a previous modification. I said no I am on a modification now I have only had one modification and then this one I was just denied for, she argued with me I told her I wanted a supervisor. The supervisor came on and told me I was denied because my debt to income was to high. I asked him how can that be I have less debt and the same income I did when I got the modification I am on now. He said for me to resubmit the financial page of the application with the new debits and income. I asked him about why all my documents I had submitted where gone, he refused to answer, I asked to have everything sent to me via email or snail mail he refused to discuss saying we are only here to discuss the denial, he would not even discuss any alternatives and kept insisting I have had 2 other modifications beside the current one and I defaulted on one. That went nowhere that's why I asked for all previous documents, he refused to discuss. \nI explained to him that I was in contract to sell the house and the closing date should be in XXXX. The supervisor told me that was not a option and foreclosure will be pursued. He told me to resubmit the financial page of the application I did so immediately. Again I waited forever to hear anything from Penny Mac, I finally received a call stating every thing was in order and I do not need to do any thing that I will be notified by XX/XX/XXXX of any decision. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I still had not heard anything so I contacted Penny Mac, and was the told then I was denied again for the very same reasons, I was also informed that while on a modification you can not apply for another, I asked why was I told to put in for one, and why wasnt I given any other options. She could not give me a answer. So all this waiting and waiting was just to get me further and further behind? That way I would have a larger amount to come up with? No answer she did tell me to avoid foreclosure I would need to make a payment of {$1300.00} because the loan must be in default 120 days, She also told me I could appeal the denial and submit through the document center. I appealed on that day XX/XX/XXXX. \nFederal law requires the servicer make live contact with you. Make reasonable efforts to contact you by phone, or in person no later then 36 days of delinquency to talk about loss mitigation options and again within 36 days after each payment due date for as long as your delinquent, even if they previously spoke to you. Servicers after the second missed payment are also required to work with borrowers who are having trouble. I never received any of that. \nI finally was notified XX/XX/XXXX that my appeal was denied and there wasnt anything that could be done, at that point I was 6 months behind. I offered to pay 2 months payments {$1200.00} that friday ( 2 days ) and a full payment every 2 weeks of {$640.00} for the current months payment due and to catch up on the payments behind, with the last and final outstanding payment XX/XX/XXXX and the mortgage remaining current for XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. I was told that they could not do that and that they would not take any payments at all, only a lump sum of {$6100.00}. I was taken aback, at that point I was behind only the amount of {$4500.00}. I was told that there were property inspection fees, late fees, attorney fees, and filing fees for foreclosure. I was not even in foreclosure, I had not been notified of a foreclosure and the modification appeal I was currently obtaining stopped going forward with any foreclosure proceedings. \nI asked to talk with not her supervisor but her supervisors supervisor, I asked the gentleman why I was not notified and why they would not take payments to get the mortgage current, he informed me that I had been in foreclosure since XXXX and that the note was accelerated I couldn't believe it, he told me to put in another modification to keep the foreclosure from proceeding until the house was sold. So I did. \nThe consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the Dodd Frank Wall Street reform and Consumers Act of XXXX, issued mortgage servicing rules that went into XXXX XX/XX/XXXX after being codified into Federal Law prohibits dual tracking. Servicer can not initiate foreclosure until borrower is more then 120 days delinquent on the mortgage obligation. If the borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application and the application is pending the servicer can not start foreclosure. If all required paperwork is submitted by borrower ; foreclosure can not start until the servicer informs the borrower that they are not eligible for any loss mitigation options and any appeals the borrower has made has been exhausted 12 CFR 1024.41 ( 2025 ) Penny Mac has done none of the requirements Federal and State law mandates, nor have they given any loss mitigation option to me. Common loss mitigation consist of loan modification, forbearance agreement, repayment plan, short sale, and deed of lieu. I was never given any of those options, I called to mitigate the problem and I put in for modification and I was denied a repayment plan. I was never given a option for forbearance. \nI was never notified of the foreclosure filing except when I received a letter from XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I spoke with them I was told the mortgage note had been accelerated the amount due was {$74000.00} and payments are not an option. I asked how can the note be accelerated when I had not been notified, technically at that point because of the modification any foreclosure action could not commence until the modification and appeals process was denied. There was never a pre-settlement conference that by Indiana foreclosure laws borrowers have a right to have, along with pre-foreclosure notice. \nBecause of Penny Macs non conformance of Federal and State laws, I was forced to sell my home I have lived in for over 13 years, and of that I had to basically give it away. \nIn XXXX I asked for a pay off statement, the notice was dated XXXX XXXX the payoff was good through XX/XX/XXXX, funds received after that date are subject to an additional {$8.00} of interest per day. \nThe payoff statement was as follows : Principle Balance {$71000.00} Interest due as of XX/XX/XXXX {$1800.00} Pro Rata XXXX Annual Premium {$280.00} Foreclosure Fees {$1000.00} Foreclosure Costs {$260.00} Property Inspection Fees {$100.00} Late Charges {$120.00} Non-Suffient Funds {$25.00} Release Costs {$22.00} Total Payoff as of XX/XX/XXXX {$74000.00} How can I be charged anything for foreclosure when I was still in modification and was never notified by certified letter, and never received a breach letter. \nI then received another payoff letter due to the fact that my house was in contract to close XX/XX/XXXX. \nThe payoff letter was dated XXXX XXXX this was good through XXXX XXXX and any funds received after that date was subject to {$8.00} a day. \nThe payoff statement was as follows : Principle Balance {$71000.00} Interest Due as of XX/XX/XXXX {$2300.00} ( {$8.00} x 41 days = {$340.00} why is it more ) ( XXXX should be {$2200.00} ) Pro Rata XXXX Annual Premium {$46.00} Escrow Advance Balance {$2800.00} ( I did get refund fromthe Insurance co. Dont know where the balance of {$1000.00} was for I had to pay property taxes at closing ; again I was charged double ) Foreclosure Fees {$2100.00} ( why double? ) ( should not even be in foreclosure ) Foreclosure Cost {$760.00} ( why the extra {$500.00} No Foreclosure still in last modification ) Property Inspection Fees {$120.00} Late Charges {$25.00} Recording Fees {$25.00} ( Recording of what ) Release costs {$22.00} Total Payoff as of XX/XX/XXXX {$79000.00} At this point I still was not served with official summons not a pre-foreclosure letter, never got a letter stating I was in default or a breach letter. I finally got a letter of denial from the modification I was told to do in XXXX. I received that denial XX/XX/XXXX well after the house was sold. \nI called the XXXX XXXX after the closing XX/XX/XXXX, I was wanting to know the detailed charges that I had to pay at closing. They would not give me any answers. I asked why I was even charged for a foreclosure costs and fees when I wasn't even in foreclosure, why the loan was already accelerated I was in modification process, I asked about the interest charged as well. As per usual I couldn't get an answer only I was in foreclosure since XXXX, I said XXXX? no I was in a modification at that time and I have not been served with anything, sent any foreclosure notice and I have not even been offered a settlement conference. All the agent could say was contact the attorney. \nSo I did, I spoke with a paralegal and I asked her why the charges for attorney fees doubled from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX. She could only say that there were things the attorney had to do. I asked her how was there anything at all to do considering I was not even in foreclosure by Federal Law and State Statute foreclosure can not move forward until all mitigation factors are resolved, I was in a modification process so what things needed to be done. I was told that I had been in foreclosure since XXXX. I asked her for the billable hours that was spent on this. She put me on hold came back to tell me that she would give me the email to the attorney and I can correspond to them that way. I told her no I do not need to talk to them I just need you to send me the billable hours, by law I have a right to them after all I am paying the bill. She hung up on me. \nI have recently reached out to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and talked with a supervisor about my concerns and I that I felt I was owed some money back. He went with the same ol same ol you were in foreclosure.... I asked him tell me why wasn't I notified? he said nothing. I said how does 41 days times {$8.00} equal out to be almost XXXX? where I went to school its only like {$350.00}. So why was I charged so much interest? No reply. I then asked him you put forth a foreclosure before the modification was even decided on then you accelerated the note ; would not allow me to make payments how is that not dual tracking? That is illegal. He said oh is that against the law. I said Yes Under Federal Law, and State Statute. I asked him for a detailed accounting not a vague but a line by line accounting of where the proceeds from closing went. He said he would email me that. This is the XXXX still nothing from him. \nAfter the identity debacle when Equifax had that breach and my identity was stolen I am trying to rebuild my credit, while I was looking at my report I noticed Penny Mac has reported on my account foreclosure, I was never served and I was never in foreclosure how? My denial for modification did not come until after I sold my house. I disputed the fact that I was not in foreclosure, late yes but foreclosure no. It still shows that ; I have even contacted Penny Mac to have them take the foreclosure reporting off. The account shows paid but the reporting also shows foreclosure, Under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C Section 1681 et seg If the lender fails to report a deficiency as having been eliminated, discharged, or abolished PennyMac has not followed reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of its reporting, the incorrect reporting of a foreclosure and the refusal to take the reporting down violates the FCRA. In Essence, Penny Mac has blatantly violated not only Federal Laws and State Statutes on foreclosure compliance, they have also over charged on fees, and reported incorrect information that has significantly harmed my creditworthiness. Now being I was forced into basically giving my home away selling it at a very low price because Penny Mac negligently violated Ind Code 32-30-10.5-8 ( XXXX ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 12 CFR 1024.41 ( XXXX ) ; FCRA ; and CFPB I am homeless and the negligent reporting had caused me undue hardship in that it is impossible for me to find safe affordable housing. One look at the credit reporting I am denied I have no where to go.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-18T17:16:37.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"USDA mortgage","zip_code":"467XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14496546","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T13:04:04.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Now Every <em>time</em> I contacted Penny Mac I never talked to the same person, I was asked every <em>time</em> if I was still in the home, I would tell them you don't know? You are charging me {$20.00} property inspection every month sometimes every XXXX weeks."]},"sort":[5.129274,"14496546"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2680977","_score":4.6589756,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Okay just to be clear I have filed complaints since about 7 months ago with every federal, state, local,  house, goveneor, sheriff, chief, representatives and more I had sent out over 5000 emails,  an according t my XXXX bill I had made over 20,000 in the last two months alone. Denial letters from free legal services from missiouri and arkansas, denial from help from victiums of crimes special programs and denial from attorney generals and on and on and on. \n\nOk it kind of a long story it actually starts almost five months ago, lets just say since five months ago we have suffered hacking and scammers, and idenity theft and it was bad for a while we were  and are almosr 7000 in debt just from that alone not including everything on my credit record with is almost 70,000 which I thnk some is my student loans. Well after afew weeks the calmed down a bit.\nWell about a week  a month after that, I had to stop working because of my health being so XXXX so I havent worked in almost 4 months now and still waiting on XXXX to kick it.  \nWell we ended up having to get  another vehicle,  cause of my appointsments and hospital visits it wasnt working out with husbands shedule. And he was goning to lose his job if we kept at it\nSo on XX/XX/XXXX we finally got someone to give us a chance with a truck which my husband used for work sometimes.\nWell that was the first time XXXX XXXX lied to me, when they called me about being approved for sure I was told all we had to do was come and sign the papers and it was going to be XXXX  Dollars Down.  No more than that, I thought thank god,\nWell of course I still had not be released to go back to work yet not sure when I am going back honestly,  my health is XXXX XXXX, andy ways  about  a week of having the truck it started acting up they were very slow to respond abut the issue and it took  almost two weeks for them to actually do something about it.\n\nWell XX/XX/XXXX I told my husband since we were so far in debt with everything with the scamming and hacking that we was not going to have to file for bankcruptcy and I had researched online that we can file for a petition of affirmation of  automatitc stay of assets which would help keep the only assets we had\nWell I went online which since we had got hacked, and scammed and the idenity theft I had set up proxy, vpns, IP addresses,  and emails and everything it was that bad. \n\nWell I was online again looking for free legal help to fill the  paperwork out and were to get the forms from online frokm the district courst of missouri and I filled it all out the waviers for the courts cost and fees and everything else then was told that it  would be filed on XX/XX/XXXX and that afternoon was told go aheaed and send out to the dealerships and in a few days we finish the rest of the procedure and it was gonna cost like XXXX dollars well with me not working I had just got my last check and all  ihad left ws XXXX so I gave him that through online transfer. \n\nSo the next day XX/XX/XXXX at around XXXX we heard a tow truck outside and my husband went to look and their they were taking his truck, we had not received one call, one , text, or email or any notice that this was happening at all.   My husband jumped in my car and drove two hours away to talk to them to see what was going on and when he got there they \n\nTHE FINACE SIDE OF THE COMPANY TOLD HIM HE COULD HAVE THE TRUCK BACK IF HE PAID THEM XXXX FOR TOWING IT.   \nWELL WHY HE WAS OUT THERE I HAD GONE ONLINE AND FILIED OUT COMPLAINTS I KNOW THEY ARE IN THE WRONG FOR DOING THAT. \n\nWELL THAT SAME DAY I TALKED TO THE GM XXXX WHICH TOOK ME 8 TIMES TO GET HIM BECAUSE XXXX I THINK HER NAME WAS OR XXXX KEPT LYING TO ME WHEN I ASKE TO SPEAK TO THE GM SHE SAID SHE WAS AND THAT IS NOT HOW SHE INTRADUCED HERESLF ON THE PHONE WHEN ANSERING PLUS I HAD TALKE D TO HER MANY TIMES BEFORE.\n\nHAD TO GO THROUGH CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE AND ASK FOR GM FINALLY GOT  HIM XXXX\n\nAND HE SAID THAT BECAUSE FO THE COMPLAINTS I HAD SUBMITTED THATS WHY THEY TOOK THE TRUCK AND IT WAS BEING REVIEWED BY THEIR SUPPOSEDLY TEAM OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. \n\nYET THEY TOLD MY HUSBAND THAT THEY RECEIVED THE PAPERS ABOUT THE BANK RUPTCY AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY THEY TOOKT THE TRUCK BACK.\n\nCONFLICTING STORIES THERE,  WELL SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN ONLINE TRYING TO LEARN HOW TO UPGRADE TO EFILE WELL THAT WAS A WEEK WASTED TO COME AND FIND OUT I CANT WHEN I HAVE DOCUMENTS FROM ONLINE SHOWING AND STATING ON HOW YOU CAN IF YOU REPRESENTING YOURSELF PRO SE\n\nWELL IN THAT TIME THEY BARLY SPOKE TO ME THEY TALKED TO MY HUSBAND THOUGH.  WELL THRUSDAY HE TALKED TO THEM LATE EVENING  AND THEY TOLD HIM THAT IF I DROPPED THE LAWSUIT THAT THEY WOULD RETURN THE TRUCK BACK TO US AND WOULD BE CHARGED FOR THE TOWING\n\nFUNNY THING IS ABOUT THE WHOLE THING I NEVER FILED YET I GOT SOME HELP AND WE WERE HAVING SOMEONE SERVED A DEMAND LETTER WITH ONE OF THE BARGGININGS WAST TO RETURN THE TRUCK.\n\nSO APPARENTLY HE HAS BEEN TALKING TO XXXX, AND XXXX, AND XXXX AT XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AR. XXXX XXXX\n\nWELL THE NEXT DAY I SENT VIA EMAIL AND ONLINE FAX TO HEADQUARTERS WELL WHAT THEY SHOW ONLINE AS HEADQUARTERS AND SENT TO THE XXXX NUMBER EMAIL EVEN THOUGH IST XXXX AR. XX/XX/XXXX EMAIL AS WELL. \n\n I  WLL ATTACH COPY OF THAT AS WELL, WELL DIDNT HEAR NOTHING AND MY HUSBAND ASKED ME TO CALL THEM SO  I DID STARTING AT XXXX XXXX TILL  ABOUT XXXX AT NIGHT WHEN I CALLED THEY HUNG UP, PUT ME ON HOLD FOREVER AND THEN HANG UP TAKE MESSAGE FOR XXXX AND SAID HE WAS BUSY AND DIDNT EVER CALL BACK AT ALL I CALLED EVERY NAME ON LIST TO CORP. OFFICE IN XXXX, IN AND LEFT MESSAGE STATING I SENT EMAIL EXKPLAING THE REASON WE WAS FILING AND THERE WAS NO LAWSUIT AND THAT ALL WE WANTED WAS WHAT WE ASKED FOR.   THEN  ABOUT XXXX XXXX XXXX FINALLY ANSERED THE DOOR HE \n\nSTATED TO ME HE TEXTED MY HUSBAD THAT MORING AND TOLD HIM THAT HE WOUDLNT KNOW TILL XXXX\nAND THAT HE MIGHT HAVE TO BE PUT INTO ANOTHER VEHICAL NOT THE TRUCK.\n\nNOW, I WAS VERY MAD SINCE FRIDAY I HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT RESEARCH AND RESEARCH AND I FOUND OUT A LOT OF THINGS \n\nWHICH ALL GO AGAINST OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND POOR WORK ETHICS ON THEIR POINT OF VEIW, \nNOW THEY TOLD MY HUSBAND THAT THE ONLY HE COULD HAVE HIS THINGS OUT OF THE CAR WAS TO GIVE BACK THE OTHER KEY .\n\nWELL LIKE I SAID I HVE RESEARCHED XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX AND I HAVE FOUND OUT A LOT ABOUT THIS COMPANY AND I ALSO HAVE AT LEAST OVER 25000 DOWNLOADS OF MISSIOURI,  ARKANSAS, AND XXXX  LAWS ON CIVIL RIGHS, CIVIL RIGHTS AND AUTOMOBILES AND CIVIL RIGHT AND REPOSSIONS AS WELL.\n\nI HAVE OVER 100 TABS SAVED ON PHONE AND LAPTOP AND DOCUMENTS ABOUIT THIS COMPANY, MANY LAWSUITS AND LOTS OF UNFAIR PRACTICES AND AND REPOSSESIONS AND MORE, \n\nI WILL ONLY SEND CERTAIN THINGS PRETAING TO THIS MOSTLY .\n\nEverything here I have got off their websites, contracts  as employees, share holders,  and more mainly going to focus on the problem at hand and I have read and downloaded all the law archives from Missouri, Arkansas, Indianan. I have read and downloaded the laws pertaining to civil rights, repossession and arbritaration laws as well and I  have downloaded the Byrider Franchising hand book 0n how they are to run the the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stores the chains of commands policy they are to follow and more and I also have clips of the contract as well\nWHICH THE CONTRACT AND THEIR POLICYS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES AND THEY DID NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE PROCEDURES ON CONTRACT OR HANDBOOK. Portioning to this mess.\n\nLike I mentioned before we were victims of crime again which was reported but of course due to lack of man power which was lied. XXXX  police officer said and time and no leads  cant do much about that problem at all, but the company XXXX XXXX would not even hear our story or didnt take any compassion to our situations.\n\n\nLISTED BELOW IS EVERYONE I HAD CALLED AND LEFT MESSAGES AND EMAILED AND FAXED LETTERS TO SEE ABOUT GETTING THIS CLEARED UP WITH OF COURSE NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THE MEMBERS WAS TOLD BY THE  EMPLOYEES OUT OF XXXX AR. XXXX XXXX THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO US YET THEY CONTINUED COMMUICATION WITH MY HUSBAND NOT MUCH BUT MORE SO HIM THEN ME AND I AM THE BUYER\n\nSO ONLINE WHEN YOU LOOK UP MAIN HEADQUARTERS FOR XXXX XXXX THIS IS WHAT COMES UP //.\n\nXXXX XXXX\t\t\t\t\tAKA----XXXX \n\nXXXX AR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX HEADQUARTERS              AFTER YOU REWORD THINGS COMES UP\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IN XXXX\nPhone--XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFax--XXXX XXXX XXXX\nEmail--XXXX\n\nSO THE WEBSITE IT GIVES A LIST OF NAMES OF SUPPOSEDLY THE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS LOCATION::\nXXXX XXXX PRESIDENT-- LEFT 6 MESSAGES ON VOICEMAIL, XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX--CONSUMER AFFAIRS SPECIALIST ( WHICH THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD WHO I NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH)---XX/XX/XXXX    LEFT 15 VOICE MAILS\n\nXXXX XXXX--DIRCTOR OF SALES--XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 8 MESSAGES\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX-- XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 4 VOICEMAILS\n\nXXXX XXXX-- LEFT 4 VOICEMAILS XX/XX/XXXX \nXXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX LEFT 3 VOICEMAILS XXXX XXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX LEFT 3 VOICEMAILS\n\nXXXX  XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX LEFT 5 VOICEMAILS XXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 2 VOICEMAILS\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 6 VOICEMAILS\n\nSUPPOSEDLY EMAIL FOR OFFICE IS ----XXXX  WHICH GOES TO XXXX AR.   AND CUSTOMER SERVICE EMAIL IS XXXX\nWHICH IM SURE GOES TO XXXX AR. LOCATION AS WELL\n\nTHAT WAS ALL DAY SATURDAY I TRIED CALLING CORP OFFICE AND ONLY SENT OUT ONCE THE EMAIL TO THE EMAILS ON WEBSITES AND FAXED TO THE FAX NUMBERS AS WELL\n\nXXXX \nXXXX AR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX I THINK HE A GM XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND I THINK XXXX\n\nHAVE ALL SAID DIFFERENT STORIES TO ME WHEN AND IF THEY ANSWERED OR TOOK MY CALLS \n\nAND HAD TOLD MY HUSBAND MANY DIFFERENT STORIES AS WELL VERY CONFLICTING STORIES\n\n\n\nWELL I FOUND OUT\nXXXX CUSTOMER SERVICE IS LINKED TO BOTH PLACES AND TRANSFERS CALLS ONLY TO XXXX AR   I CALLED THEM 25 TIMES  XXXX\n\nSO I WAS MAD, MY HUSBAND WAS MAD CAUSE THEY KEEP LYING TO US AND TELLING US DIFFERENT STORIES.. SO I DID DIGGING AROUND ON EACH PERSON AND THE COMPANY ITSELF AND I DOWNLOAD ALL PUBLIC ARCHIEVES  OF THE LAWS FOR CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS AND ARBRITRATION LAWS AS WELL AND I WIL COPY AND PASTE WHAT I HAD SEND LINKS DOCUMENTS AND PICTURES TO BACK UP MY FINDINGS \n\nAND I ALSO CAME ACROSS THEIR FRANCISHING HAND BOOK ON HOW THEY ARE TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS AND HOW THEY TARGET PEOPLE WHO ARE FINIANCALLLY UNSTABLE AND LIE TO THEM AND CHARGING HOW MUCH INTERSET THEY WANT NO MORE THOUGH THAN  35% AND MORE I HAVE DOWNLOAD COMPLAINTS OF THINGS THEY HAVE DONE SIMILAR TO THIS AND NO BODY REALLY DONE MUCH\n\nI AM REQUESTING TWO THINGS AT THIS TIME\n\nFRIST IS THE TRUCK BACK WITH TITLE NO MORE LEASE AT ALL OR NEW TRUCK \n\nSECOND AND I WONT THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT ON THEM AS WELL OR BEING DECEITFUL AND MISLEADING AND BREAKING LAWS AND MORE BAD BUSINESS JUDGEMENTS AS WELL.\n\nSO WHEN YOU XXXX XXXX  HEADDQUARTERS IT COMES UP XXXX IN AND THAT I FOUND LIKE I SAID GOES ROUTED TO XXXX  AR,\n\nI HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT, WHEN YOU ENTER THE WEBSITE AND PICK A LOCATON AND CHOOSE INDIANA  WELLL XXXX  IN LOCATION DONT COME UP HAVE PICTURE AS WELL.\n\n\nLIKE I SAID I DID A LOT OF DIGGING AROUND ON THESE PEOPLE I ACTUALLY HAVE HOME ADDRESSESS AND PHONE NMBERS HOME ONES AND CELLS AND SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES THEY CONNECTED TO AS WELL AND MUCH  MORE FAKE WEBSITES, NUMBERS GENERATED TO FULL CONSUMERS INTO BELIVING THEY CALLING CUSTOMER SERVICE BUT NOT THEY JUST CALLING THE STORE THEY HAVING A PROBLEM WITH AND GET TRANSFERRED AROUND FOUND ALSO THAT IF YOU GO TO \n\nXXXX---DIRECT WEBSITE AND MAKE A PAYMENT AND THEY DONT TELL YOU THIS AND I DONT TRUST IT AT ALL SO I DIDNT MAKE A PAYMENT IT TAKES YOU TO A THIRD PARTY WEBSITE NOT EVEN CALLED XXXX OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH XXXX WEBSITES.\n\nALSO FOUND OUT THAT XXXX XXXX IS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL BANK RESERVERS I CHECKED NOT ON THERE NOR IS BYRIDER OR XXXX OR SOME OF THE OTHER NAMES I TRIED TO ENTER AS WELL\n\nI WILL SUBMIT THAT ALL AS WELL. THEY ARE APPARENTLY REGISTERED AND IN.GOV WITH 4 DIFFERENT NUMBERS AS WELL AND DIFFERENT ADDRESSES AND NAMES AND CONTACTS WHICH I DID TRY TO REACH OUT TO AND NOTHING I WILL ATTACH ALL THAT AS WELL.  \n\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL, XXXX----XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX (Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code) (XXXX) XXXX (Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)    XXXX XXXX \n\n\nTHIS RIGHT HERE HIS JUST ONE OF THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS THEY HAVE NOT TO THE ADDRESS THAT THEY SAY IS CORP OFFICE HEADQUARTES DONT EVEN MATCH UP\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. is an entity registered at Indiana with company number XXXX. Company is incorporated onXX/XX/XXXX. Current status of the company is Merged. The company's agentis XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX - XXXX, USA The company's secretaryis XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX, USA The company's presidentis XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX, USA\nCompany information\n\nFrom  \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IS THE SERVING AGENT WHOM I WOULD LIKE SERVED AND EVERYONE ELSE SERVED AS WELL THEY ALL LIE \n\nAgent\nName\tXXXX XXXX XXXX\nAddress\tXXXX XXXX XXXX., XXXX, IN, XXXX - XXXX, USA\nSecretary\nName\tXXXX XXXX XXXX\nAddress\tXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX, USA\nP\n\nFrom  \n\n\nTHIS IS FROM PAGE 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS REVIEW \n\nThe Company utilizes its Loss Prevention and Recovery Department (the LPR) to perform on-site audits of branch compliance with \nCompany underwriting guidelines. XXXX audits Company branches on a schedule that is variable depending on the size of the branch, length of \ntime a branch has been open, current tenure of the Branch Manager, previous branch audit score and current and historical branch profitability. \nXXXX reports directly to the Accounting and Administrative Management of the Company. The Company believes that an independent review \nand audit of its branches that is not tied to the sales function of the Company is imperative in order to assure the information obtained is \nimpartial.  \n\nTHIS IS FROM PAGE 9 AS WELL CALLED MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS\n\nThe Companys Management Information Services personnel maintain a number of reports to monitor compliance by customers with their \nobligations under Contracts and direct loans made by the Company. These reports may be accessed on a real-time basis throughout the \nCompany by management personnel, including Branch Managers and staff, at computer terminals located in the main office and each branch \noffice. These reports include delinquency aging reports, customer promises reports, vehicle information reports, purchase reports, dealer \nanalysis reports, static pool reports, and repossession reports.  \nA delinquency report is an aging report that provides basic information regarding each account and indicates accounts that are past due. The \nreport includes information such as the account number, address of the customer, home and work phone numbers of the customer, original term \nof the Contract, number of remaining payments, outstanding balance, due dates, date of last payment, number of days past due, scheduled \npayment amount, amount of last payment, total past due, and special payment arrangements or agreements.  \nAny account that is less than 120 days old is included on the delinquency report on the first day that the Contract is contractually past due. \nOnce an account becomes 30 days past due, repossession proceedings are implemented unless the customer provides the Company with an \nacceptable explanation for the delinquency and displays a willingness and the ability to make the payment, and commits to a plan to return the \naccount to current status. When an account is 60 days past due, the Company ceases recognition of income on the Contract and repossession \nproceedings are initiated. At 120 days delinquent, if the vehicle has not yet been repossessed, the account is written off. Once a vehicle has \nbeen repossessed, the related loan balance no longer appears on the delinquency report. Instead, the vehicle appears on the Companys \nrepossession report and is sold, either at auction or to an automobile dealer.  \n\nWhen an account becomes delinquent, the Company immediately contacts the customer to determine the reason for the delinquency and to \ndetermine if appropriate arrangements for payment can be made. If payment arrangements acceptable to the Company can be made, the \ninformation is entered in its database and is used to generate a Promises Report, which is utilized by the Companys collection staff for \naccount follow up.  \n\nThe Company prepares a repossession report that provides information regarding repossessed vehicles and aids the Company in disposing of \nrepossessed vehicles. In addition to information regarding the customer, this report provides information regarding the date of repossession, \ndate the vehicle was sold, number of days it was held in inventory prior to sale, year, make and model of the vehicle, mileage, payoff amount \non the Contract, XXXX book value, XXXX XXXX value, suggested sale price, location of the vehicle, original dealer and condition of the \nvehicle, as well as notes other information that may be helpful to the Company.  \nThe Company also prepares a dealer analysis report that provides information regarding each dealer from which it purchases Contracts. This \nreport allows the Company to analyze the volume of business done with each dealer and the terms on which it has purchased Contracts from \nsuch dealer.  \n\nThe Companys policy is to aggressively pursue legal remedies to collect deficiencies from customers. Oral requests for payment are made \nbeginning when an account becomes 11 days delinquent. When an account becomes 30 days delinquent and the customer has not made \npayment arrangements acceptable to the Company or has failed to respond to the requests for payment, a repossession request form is prepared \nby the responsible branch office employee for approval by the Branch Manager for the vicinity in which the borrower lives. Once the \nrepossession request has been approved, first by the Branch Manager and second by the applicable District  \n   \n\n\nTHIS STATES HOW ANYONE IN THE COMPANY CAN ACCESS ALL INFORMATION ALTER INFORMATION BASICALLY DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, NOT PRIVACY \n\nComputerized Information System  \nThe Company utilizes integrated computer systems developed by XXXX to assist in responding to customer inquiries and to monitor the \nperformance of its Contract and direct loan portfolio and the performance of individual customers under Contracts. All Company personnel are \nprovided with real-time access to information from a single shared database. The Company has created specialized programs to automate the \ntracking of Contracts and direct loans from inception. The Companys computer network encompasses both its corporate headquarters and its \nbranch office locations. See Monitoring and Enforcement of Contracts above for a summary of the different reports prepared by the \n\n\n\n\nTHIS THEY VIOLADATED AS WELL  FALSE IMPLICATIONS  PAGE 11\n\n Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and applicable state law counterparts \nprohibit the Company from contacting customers during certain times and at certain places, from using certain threatening practices \nand from making false implications when attempting to collect a debt.  \n  \n\nNO PRIVACY WITH INTERGRATED DATABASE BUT IT SAYS THEY HAVE TO KEEP OUR STUFF PRIVATE THEY DONT PAGE 11 AS WELL\n\n Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and applicable state law counterparts \nprohibit the Company from contacting customers during certain times and at certain places, from using certain threatening practices \nand from making false implications when attempting to collect a debt.  \n  \n\nSTATES THEY MAY NOT INTERFER  PAGE 12\n\nBankruptcy. Federal bankruptcy and related state laws may interfere with or affect the Companys ability to recover collateral or \nenforce a deficiency judgment.  \n\n\nNEXT IS ABOUT HOW EMPLOYESS ARE TO HANDLE THINGS AND WHO HANDLES THEM AND THE PROCDURES AND THE DO AND DONTS  ASLO PAGE 12, 13, 14, 15 ,16.17:::IPAGE 14 STATES THAT AS SOON AS THEY REPOSSES A VEHICLE ITS TOOK TO AUTION RIGHT AWAY\n\n\nThe auction proceeds we receive from the sale of repossessed vehicles and other recoveries are subject to fluctuation due to economic \nand other factors beyond our control.  \nIf we repossess a vehicle securing a Contract, we typically have it transported to an automobile auction for sale. Auction proceeds from the sale \nof repossessed vehicles and other recoveries are usually not sufficient to cover the outstanding balance of the Contract, and the resulting \ndeficiency is charged off. In addition, there is, on average, approximately a 30-day lapse between the time we repossess a vehicle and the time \nit is sold by a dealer or at auction. The proceeds we receive from such sales depend upon various factors, including the supply of, and demand \nfor, used vehicles at the time of sale. Such supply and demand are dependent on many  \n   \nHERE IT STATES WRONGFUL REPOSSETIONS, BANRUPTCY VIOLATOINS AND MORE\n\nWe are subject to risks associated with litigation.  \nAs a consumer finance company, we are subject to various consumer claims and litigation seeking damages and statutory penalties, based \nupon, among other things:  \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n12  \n   \n  usury laws;  \n   \n  disclosure inaccuracies;  \n   \n  wrongful repossession;  \n   \n  violations of bankruptcy stay provisions;  \n   \n  certificate of title disputes;  \n   \n  fraud;  \n   \n  breach of contract; and  \n   \n  discriminatory treatment of credit applicants.  \n\n\nSome litigation against us could take the form of class action complaints by consumers. As the assignee of Contracts originated by dealers, we \nmay also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against dealers. The damages and penalties claimed by \nconsumers in these types of actions can be substantial. The relief requested by the plaintiffs varies but may include requests for compensatory, \nstatutory and punitive damages. We also are periodically subject to other kinds of litigation typically experienced by businesses such as ours, \nincluding employment disputes and breach of contract claims. No assurances can be given that we will not experience material financial losses \nin the future as a result of litigation or other legal proceedings.  \n\nPAGES 17-21 SAYS THE HAVE TO PRACTICE PROPER COLLECTION POLICES WHICH THEY DID NOT::\n  licensing requirements;  \n  requirements for maintenance of proper records;  \n  payment of required fees to certain states;  \n  maximum interest rates that may be charged on loans to finance new and used vehicles;  \n  debt collection practices;  \n  proper disclosure to customers regarding financing terms;  \n  privacy regarding certain customer data;  \n  interest rates on loans to customers;  \n  telephone solicitation of direct loan customers; and  \n  collection of debts from loan customers who have filed bankruptcy.  \n\n\nAGAIN ON PAGE 18  INTERGRATED DATABASE\n\nWe may experience problems with our integrated computer systems or be unable to keep pace with developments in technology.  \nWe use various technologies in our business, including telecommunication, data processing, and integrated computer systems. Technology \nchanges rapidly. Our ability to compete successfully with other financing companies may depend on our ability to efficiently and cost-\neffectively implement technological changes. Moreover, to keep pace with our competitors, we may be required to invest in technological \nchanges that do not necessarily improve our profitability.  \nWe utilize integrated computer systems to respond to customer inquiries and to monitor the performance of our Contract and direct loan \nportfolios and the performance of individual customers under our Contracts and direct loans. Problems with our systems operations could \nadversely impact our ability to monitor our portfolios or collect amounts due under our Contracts and direct loans, which could have a material \nadverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. \n\n\nOKAY THIS ON PAGE 97 OF THEIR POLICY HANDBOOK CALLED GOVERNING LAW.\n\n16. GOVERNING LAW.  \n(a) The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State \nof Florida, except that Section 16(b) shall be construed in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act if arbitration is chosen by the Employee \nas the method of dispute resolution.  \n(b) Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall, at the Employees election, be determined by either (i) arbitration under the \nrules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect (but subject to any evidentiary standards set forth in this Agreement), in which \nboth parties shall be bound by the arbitration award, or (ii) by litigation. Whether the dispute is to be settled by arbitration or litigation, the \nvenue for the arbitration or litigation shall be Tampa, Florida. The parties consent to personal jurisdiction in each trial court in the selected \nvenue having subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding their residence or situs, and each party irrevocably consents to service of process in \nthe manner provided hereunder for the giving of notices.  \n\n\n  \n(b) Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall, at the Employees election, be determined by either (i) arbitration under the \nrules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect (but subject to any evidentiary standards set forth in this Agreement), in which \nboth parties shall be bound by the arbitration award, or (ii) by litigation. Whether the dispute is to be settled by arbitration or litigation, the \nvenue for the arbitration or litigation shall be Tampa, Florida. The parties consent to personal jurisdiction in each trial court in the selected \nvenue having subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding their residence or situs, and each party irrevocably consents to service of process in \nthe manner provided hereunder for the giving of notices.\n\nTHESE NEXT FEW PAGES 115 10 125 ARE THE AUTOMOBILE DEALER RETAIL AGREEMENT PLANS:::\n\nThe undersigned Dealer proposes to sell to the undersigned XXXX XXXX XXXX. (XXXX), from time to time, Promissory Notes, Security \nAgreements, Retail Installment contracts, Conditional Sales Contracts, or other instruments hereinafter referred to as Contracts, evidencing \ninstallment payment obligations owing Dealer arising from the time sale of motor vehicle(s) and secured by such Contracts. It is understood \nthat XXXX shall have the sole discretion to determine which Contracts it will purchase from Dealer.  \n   \nIndemnity : As a separate and cumulative obligation, Dealer shall defend and hold XXXX harmless from any and all claims, defenses, \noffsets, damages, suits, administrative or other proceedings, cost (including reasonable attorneys fees), expenses, losses, and liabilities. \n(Collectively Claims) arising out of connected with or relating to the Contract or the goods or services sold there under. Timing of \nindemnification is within 7 days of demand by XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX. (hereinafter referred to as XXXX XXXX XXXX. or the Company) requires ethical conduct in the practice of \nfinancial management in all aspects of business activities.  \nThe XXXX XXXX XXXX. Code of Ethical Conduct for Financial Managers applies to all senior officers serving in a financial role. The Chief \nExecutive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, as well as certain other senior financial officers, hold an elevated role in corporate \ngovernance and are expected to act in accordance with the highest standards of personal and professional integrity, to comply with all \napplicable laws, rules, and regulations, to preserve and protect shareholders interests, and to abide by the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Code of \nBusiness Conduct and Ethics and other policies and procedures adopted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. that govern the conduct of its employees. \nThis Code of Ethical Conduct is intended to supplement the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.  \nAs the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, or other senior financial officer, I certify to you that I adhere to and \nadvocate the following principles governing my professional and ethical conduct in the fulfillment of my responsibilities. I agree to:  \n   \n  a. Comply with the Companys internal policies and procedures; \nb. Act at all times in accordance with the Companys Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which has been provided to me and with \nwhich I will comply; \nc. Engage in and promote honesty, integrity and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of \ninterest between personal and professional relationships; \nd. Provide accurate, complete, objective, timely and understandable financial disclosures in regards to internal reports as well as \nd\ndocuments filed or submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, any governmental, private or public regulatory agency, \nor used in public communications; \ne. Comply with applicable federal, state, provincial, and/or local governmental laws, rules and regulations, as well as appropriate \nprivate and public regulatory agencies; \nf. Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of performing my work responsibilities except when authorized or \notherwise legally obligated to disclose such information; \ng. Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresenting or omitting material facts or \nallowing my independent judgment to be compromised; \n  h. Avoid using confidential information acquired in the course of performing my job responsibilities for personal advantage; \n\n\nTHEY HAVE FIVE PAGES OF DEALERSHIPS THEY GET THERE CARS FROM PAGES ON PAGES ON HOW THEY KEEP FROM PAYING TAXES AND GET EXTRA MONEY THEY ARE CROOKS AND THEY ARE ALL THROUGH ONE MAIN GUY XXXX XXXX XXXX.  \n\nXXXX IS NOT EVEN A REAL BANK THEY GET THEIR MONEY FROM OTHER PLACES\nTHEY STOLE FROM US\n\n\nTHE MAIN STORES COMPANYS WE HAVING ISSUES WITH WILL BE LISTED FIRST ALL THE REST ARE POSSIBLE PLACES WHERE SUPPOSEDLY THEY ARE WHICH ONLINE AND ON SOME OF THEIR WEBSITES THEY ARE LISTED ON ONE OF THE TWO ADDRESSES LISTED FIRST.    ALSO NAMES OF SOME OF THE ASSOCIATES THAT WERE THE MAIN ISSUE ARE LOCATED AT THE XXXX AR LOCATION,  THE ONES TO INDIANA ARE NOT EVEN AT THAT LOCATION I FOUND OUT\n\nXXXX XXXX\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AR XXXX\nXXXX\n\nTHE FOLLOWING PEOPLE WHO DID THIS AND HAVE NOT CONTACTED US LIED TO US AND REFUSED TO TALK TO US AND TOLD US","date_sent_to_company":"2017-09-21T19:11:20.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"65616","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2680977","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","date_received":"2017-09-21T16:54:45.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["THIS IS FROM PAGE 9 AS WELL CALLED MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS\n\nThe Companys Management Information Services personnel maintain a number of reports to monitor <em>compliance</em> by customers with their \nobligations under Contracts and direct loans made by the Company. These reports may be accessed on a real-<em>time</em> basis <em>throughout</em> the \nCompany by management personnel, including Branch Managers and staff, at computer terminals located in the main office and each branch \noffice."]},"sort":[4.6589756,"2680977"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":10,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":10}]}},"product":{"doc_count":10,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"USDA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Earned wage access","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":10,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Confusing or missing disclosures","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","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":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":10,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":10}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":10,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":9},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":10,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":10}]}},"company":{"doc_count":10,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Activehours","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Flagstar Bank, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":10,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":10,"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":3},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":10,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}