{"took":238,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":136,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10888340","_score":16.06928,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Loan Paid in Full : The loan associated with this credit card was paid in full at closing, in compliance with XXXX XXXX ( Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. XXXX ), which states that loan proceeds credited to a customers demand deposit account constitute a cash receipt by the customer, meaning the loan was effectively paid off. \n\nLate Payments Reported : Despite the loan being fully paid, the account reflects XXXX late payments. This is incorrect, as there should not have been any outstanding payments after the loan closure. \n\nRefund Due Under Public Law XXXX ( XXXX ) : As per Public Law XXXX ( XXXX ), the loan was discharged through credit, and I am entitled to a refund of any prepaid amount that remains on the account. \n\nAccount Status and Correction : The account was closed in XX/XX/year> and marked as paid. However, it still reflects an inaccurate history of late payments, which should be corrected. Additionally, there has been no refund issued for the prepaid loan balance, as required by 15 U.S. Code 1666d. \n\nRequested Actions : Refund of Prepaid Loan Balance : I request that the prepaid loan balance be refunded pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1666d. \n\nCorrection of Credit Report : I request that Navy Federal Credit Union correct the credit report to reflect that the loan was paid in full and update the account history to remove the inaccurate late payment entries. \n\nClarification of Loan Status : I request a clarification of the loan status, ensuring it accurately reflects that no further payments are required, and the account was paid off as of XX/XX/year>. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. Please review the details and take the appropriate steps to address this complaint. I appreciate your timely assistance in resolving this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-21T17:31:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"46112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10888340","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-11-21T17:13:37.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Loan</em> Paid in Full : The <em>loan</em> associated with this credit card was paid in full at closing, in <em>compliance</em> with XXXX XXXX ( Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. XXXX ), <em>which</em> <em>states</em> that <em>loan</em> <em>proceeds</em> credited to a customers demand deposit account constitute a cash receipt by the customer, meaning the <em>loan</em> was effectively paid off. \n\nLate Payments Reported : Despite the <em>loan</em> being fully paid, the account reflects XXXX late payments."]},"sort":[16.06928,"10888340"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10888108","_score":16.037304,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Loan Paid in Full : The loan associated with this credit card was paid in full at closing, in compliance with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which states that loan proceeds credited to a customers demand deposit account constitute a cash receipt by the customer, meaning the loan was effectively paid off. \n\nLate Payments Reported : Despite the loan being fully paid, the account reflects XXXX late payments. This is incorrect, as there should not have been any outstanding payments after the loan closure. \n\nRefund Due Under Public Law 73-10 ( HJR-192 ) : As per Public Law 73-10 ( HJR-192 ), the loan was discharged through credit, and I am entitled to a refund of any prepaid amount that remains on the account. \n\nAccount Status and Correction : The account was closed in XX/XX/year> and marked as paid. However, it still reflects an inaccurate history of late payments, which should be corrected. Additionally, there has been no refund issued for the prepaid loan balance, as required by 15 U.S. Code 1666d.\n\nRequested Actions : Refund of Prepaid Loan Balance : I request that the prepaid loan balance be refunded pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1666d.\n\nCorrection of Credit Report : I request that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX correct the credit report to reflect that the loan was paid in full and update the account history to remove the inaccurate late payment entries. \n\nClarification of Loan Status : I request a clarification of the loan status, ensuring it accurately reflects that no further payments are required, and the account was paid off as of XX/XX/year>. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. Please review the details and take the appropriate steps to address this complaint. I appreciate your timely assistance in resolving this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-21T17:31:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"46112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10888108","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-21T17:31:15.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Loan</em> Paid in Full : The <em>loan</em> associated with this credit card was paid in full at closing, in <em>compliance</em> with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), <em>which</em> <em>states</em> that <em>loan</em> <em>proceeds</em> credited to a customers demand deposit account constitute a cash receipt by the customer, meaning the <em>loan</em> was effectively paid off. \n\nLate Payments Reported : Despite the <em>loan</em> being fully paid, the account reflects XXXX late payments."]},"sort":[16.037304,"10888108"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10883430","_score":15.985104,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Loan Paid in Full : The loan associated with this credit card was paid in full at closing, in compliance with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which states that loan proceeds credited to a customers demand deposit account constitute a cash receipt by the customer, meaning the loan was effectively paid off. \n\nLate Payments Reported : Despite the loan being fully paid, the account reflects XXXX late payments. This is incorrect, as there should not have been any outstanding payments after the loan closure. \n\nRefund Due Under Public Law 73-10 ( HJR-192 ) : As per Public Law 73-10 ( HJR-192 ), the loan was discharged through credit, and I am entitled to a refund of any prepaid amount that remains on the account. \n\nAccount Status and Correction : The account was closed in XX/XX/year> and marked as paid. However, it still reflects an inaccurate history of late payments, which should be corrected. Additionally, there has been no refund issued for the prepaid loan balance, as required by 15 U.S. Code 1666d.\n\nRequested Actions : Refund of Prepaid Loan Balance : I request that the prepaid loan balance be refunded pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1666d. \n\nCorrection of Credit Report : I request that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX correct the credit report to reflect that the loan was paid in full and update the account history to remove the inaccurate late payment entries. \n\nClarification of Loan Status : I request a clarification of the loan status, ensuring it accurately reflects that no further payments are required, and the account was paid off as of XX/XX/year>. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. Please review the details and take the appropriate steps to address this complaint. I appreciate your timely assistance in resolving this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-21T17:31:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"46112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10883430","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-21T17:31:15.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Loan</em> Paid in Full : The <em>loan</em> associated with this credit card was paid in full at closing, in <em>compliance</em> with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), <em>which</em> <em>states</em> that <em>loan</em> <em>proceeds</em> credited to a customers demand deposit account constitute a cash receipt by the customer, meaning the <em>loan</em> was effectively paid off. \n\nLate Payments Reported : Despite the <em>loan</em> being fully paid, the account reflects XXXX late payments."]},"sort":[15.985104,"10883430"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7851897","_score":15.796532,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered a home improvement contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX. Subsequently, I applied for two home improvement loans ( one under my name and another under my husbands name ) for a total of {$150000.00} with Solar Mosaic LLC 'which partners with XXXX as the lender ' to build an XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX California. \n\nDuring this period of time, they withdrew a total of {$60000.00} from Solar Mosaic. No construction stages were completed, and the project remains unfinished. XXXX lost its contractors license on XX/XX/XXXX and they can't provide me with their services anymore. \n\nDespite my efforts to cancel my loan, Solar Mosaic has not agreed to do so and is now charging me the monthly fee for the total of the loan of {$150000.00}. \n\nI find myself in debt for a construction project that remains unfinished, and Solar Mosaic LLC is not taking appropriate action or offering assistance to me. They continue to ask me to get a cancelation from the contractor who is not making himself available, and Solar Mosaic is not taking responsibility on my case to cancel my loan. \n\nAs the holder of the Loan Agreement Solar Mosaic is liable, contractually under Federal law, under the terms of the Purchase the purchase Agreement and Loan Agreement, for all equities and defenses that the borrower could maintain against XXXX XXXX. Solar Mosaic is, therefore, liable to borrower for the acts of XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAs stated in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) which is considered legally binding and is primary federal law. Title 24 Subtitle B Chapter II Subchapter B Part 201 Subpart C 201.26 Conditions for loan disbursement. \n\n( a ) The lender shall comply with the following applicable requirements before disbursing the proceeds of a property improvement loan. ( 1 ) The lender shall ensure that the following conditions are met : ( 5 ) In the case of a dealer loan, the lender shall obtain a completion certificate, on a HUD-approved form and signed by the borrower and the dealer under applicable criminal and civil penalties for fraud and misrepresentation, certifying that ( i ) the improvements are eligible and have been completed in general accordance with the contract or cost estimate furnished to the lender, and ( ii ) The borrower has not obtained the benefit of and will not receive any cash payment, rebate, cash bonus, sales commission, or anything of more than nominal value from the dealer as an inducement for the consummation of the transaction. \n\n( 6 ) In the case of a dealer loan made on or after XX/XX/XXXX, the lender may disburse the loan proceeds solely to the borrower, or jointly to the borrower and the dealer or other parties to the transaction. \n\n( 7 ) In the case of a dealer loan, the lender must conduct a telephone interview with the borrower before the disbursement of the loan proceeds. The lender, at minimum, must obtain an oral affirmation from the borrower to release funds to the dealer. The lender shall document the borrower 's oral affirmation. \n\n( 8 ) For any property improvement loan, the lender shall provide the borrower with a written notice, to be signed by the borrower and retained in the loan file, that : ( i ) States that the loan will be insured by HUD and describes the actions the Secretary may take to recover the debt if the borrower defaults on the loan and an insurance claim is paid. \n( ii ) Constitutes the borrower 's agreement to pay penalties and administrative costs imposed by HUD as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717 ; and ( iii ) In the case of a direct loan, constitutes an acknowledgement of the borrower 's post disbursement obligation to furnish a completion certificate and to permit an on-site inspection by the lender or its agent in accordance with 201.40 ( b ) and ( c ). \n\n( 9 ) The lender shall assure that the loan file is complete and contains the note, security instrument, and copies of all other documents relating to the property improvement loan transaction. \n\nAdditionally, to that, XXXX lost its contractors license on XX/XX/XXXX but continued to contract after that. In some instances, allegedly they obtained advances on loans after they lost their license, which also proofs that Solar Mosaic has been failing on keeping track of their merchants ' diligences on compliances with the Contractors State License Board and other regulatory institutions. \n\nAs mentioned above, Solar Mosaic never completed any type of inspection or telephone interview with me or my husband before the disbursement of the loan proceeds. I dont hold myself accountable for that debt that is consequence of Solar Mosaic LLC XXXX negligence and not doing their due diligences according to Federal Codes, laws, and regulations.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-14T22:05:12.000Z","issue":"Getting a line of credit","sub_product":"Personal line of credit","zip_code":"90065","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7851897","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Solar Mosaic LLC","date_received":"2023-11-14T21:41:55.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In some instances, allegedly they obtained advances on <em>loans</em> after they lost their license, <em>which</em> also proofs that Solar Mosaic has been failing on keeping track of their merchants ' diligences on <em>compliances</em> with the Contractors State License Board and other regulatory institutions. \n\nAs mentioned above, Solar Mosaic never completed any type of inspection or telephone interview with me or my husband before the disbursement of the <em>loan</em> <em>proceeds</em>."],"product":["Payday <em>loan</em>, title <em>loan</em>, personal <em>loan</em>, or advance <em>loan</em>"]},"sort":[15.796532,"7851897"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18649416","_score":14.391149,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) submission of materially misleading and incomplete information to CFPB during my prior complaint ( CFPB Case # XXXX ) SPS falsely claimed compliance with RESPA/QWR requirements and improperly closed my Successor-in-Interest ( SII ) review after acknowledging receipt of my complete probate package, causing financial harm to my mothers estate property address XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX TX XXXX As a result of SPSs conduct, the estate was forced to pay a payoff amount that has never been reconciled for escrow, insurance proceeds, prior-servicer errors, or overpayments. SPSs actions blocked the estates legal right to refunds, credits, and dispute resolution after payoff. \n\nRequest : CFPB Supervisory Review/ Enforcement + Corrective Action Plan I dispute Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) response as inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. SPS claims it responded to my Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) and that no errors occurred ; however, SPSs own uploaded documents show it refused to investigate key issues, terminated successor rights, and failed to provide required reconciliations, which caused direct harm to my mothers estate.\n\n1 ) RESPA/QWR NON-COMPLIANCE Document dump and refusal to investigate Law : 12 CFR 1024.35 ( Notice of Error ) and 12 CFR 1024.36 ( Request for Information ) What SPS was required to do SPS was required to investigate and provide a substantive, issue-by-issue response to each error/information request, including payoff accuracy, escrow accounting, and any credits/insurance proceeds impacting the balance. \nWhat SPS did ( their own words ) In SPSs XXXX XXXX, XXXX response packet, SPS states it is a servicer and attempts to disclaim responsibility for core issues by pointing to the Note/servicing role rather than answering the specific questions raised. \nInstead of providing the payoff methodology, escrow reconciliation at payoff, suspense/unapplied funds history, insurance proceeds trace, or prior-servicer validation, SPS uploaded a bundle XXXX generic materials ( e.g., Note/Deed, transfer notices, payment coupon forms and other standard disclosures ) rather than a complete QWR investigation and accounting. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX None Harm to the estate Because SPS did not provide a compliant investigation and accounting, the estate was harmed by : Inability to verify whether the payoff amount was correct, including whether credits or insurance proceeds should have reduced principal. \nInability to confirm whether escrow funds were owed back to the estate at payoff ( surplus/overpayment ). \nLoss of standing and time : SPSs nonresponsive handling forced repeated follow-ups and delayed resolution while the estate was under pressure to close probate and sell. \n\nXXXX ) FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE MORTGAGE LIFE / XXXX / OPTIONAL INSURANCE IMPACTING THE LOAN BALANCE Law : 12 CFR 1024.36 ( requests for information ), and escrow/insurance servicing duties generally under Regulation X ( including 1024.17 as applicable to escrow administration ) What SPS admits in its own transfer notice SPSs own Notice of Servicing Transfer states that if the borrower had mortgage life or XXXX insurance or any other type of optional insurance, such services will not be continued after the transfer and the borrower should contact the insurer. \nXXXX XXXX None Why this is a servicing failure That notice confirms SPS was on notice that optional insurance may exist. A servicer can not refuse to investigate whether such insurance proceeds were payable/received and whether they should be credited to the loan balanceespecially after borrower death and a payoff event. \nHarm to the estate If mortgage-life/optional coverage existed, failure to investigate and trace proceeds could mean the estate paid funds that should have been covered, or paid more than necessary. \nThis is direct financial harm : unnecessary payoff or missing credits/refunds. \n\nXXXX ) ILLEGAL TERMINATION / OBSTRUCTION OF SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST ( SII ) RIGHTS Law : Regulation X servicing policies and procedures for successors ( including 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) and related CFPB successor-in-interest servicing requirements ) What SPSs own letters show ( timeline ) SPS opened the SII process and required documentation by a deadline . \nXXXX XXXX None SPS acknowledged receipt of the complete XXXX package on XX/XX/XXXX and stated it expected to complete the review within 30 days. \nXXXX XXXX None SPS then closed/withdrew the XXXX review XXXXating : We are not considering your request because the account was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX None Why this is unlawful and harmful Closing the XXXX review solely because the loan was paid blocks core successor rights, including the ability to : obtain complete accountings, receive and negotiate escrow refunds/surplus, pursue error resolution related to payoff accuracy, and pursue insurance proceeds/credits tied to the account. \nHarm to the estate SPSs closure of XXXX review after acknowledging the complete package prevented the estate from fully exercising its rights and XXXX have prevented recovery of estate funds owed ( escrow surplus/overpayments/credits/insurance proceeds ). \nIt forced the estate into a paid loan = closed door trap despite unresolved accounting disputes. \n\nXXXX ) FAILURE TO PROVIDE A FINAL PAYOFF RECONCILIATION + ESCROW DISPOSITION Law : 12 CFR 1024.17 ( escrow administration ; where applicable ) and 1024.36 ( information requests ) What SPS provided instead SPS uploaded escrow analysis statements showing taxes/insurance payments and escrow transactions over time.\n\nHowever, SPS did not provide a final reconciliation at payoff showing : XXXX XXXX None escrow balance as of payoff, whether an escrow surplus existed, whether a refund was issued, and a payoff ledger showing how the final payoff figure was computed ( principal, interest, fees, escrow, suspense/unapplied funds ). \nHarm to the estate Without payoff/escrow reconciliation, the estate can not confirm whether it is owed an escrow refund or whether charges/fees were improper. \nThis creates direct financial uncertainty and potential loss of estate assets. \n\nPROPER RESOLUTION REQUEST ( WHAT CFPB SHOULD REQUIRE SPS TO DO ) I am requesting CFPB Supervisory Review and a written corrective action plan requiring SPS to : A ) Provide a complete QWR-compliant accounting package ( not a document dump ) Full life-of-loan transaction history ( including imported prior-servicer history ) with clear definitions of all codes. \nSuspense/unapplied funds ledger and disposition. \nFee ledger ( assessment dates, reasons, reversals ). \nPayoff calculation worksheet for the payoff date ( principal + interest + fees + escrow adjustments ), including the methodology. \nFinal escrow accounting at payoff : beginning escrow, disbursements, required cushion, ending escrow, and refund amount/date ( or explanation why none was issued ). \nB ) Insurance / optional coverage investigation and trace Written confirmation of whether any mortgage-life/disability/optional insurance was associated with the loan at transfer ( as referenced in the transfer notice ) and whether any claim/proceeds were payable/received ; if so, provide dates, amounts, and crediting to the loan balance. \nC ) Successor-in-Interest correction Reopen and complete the XXXX review record ( XXXX issue a formal successor determination retroactively ) so the estates rights are not extinguished by payoff and to allow dispute/claims processing. \nD ) Monetary correction Refund all monies owed to the estate ( escrow surplus, overpayments, misapplied payments, improper fees, and/or insurance proceeds credits ), with interest where applicable, and provide a written explanation of all corrections.\n\nIMPACT STATEMENT SPSs actionsrefusal to investigate QWR issues, failure to provide payoff/escrow reconciliation, refusal to investigate insurance, and closure of successor review because the loan was paidcaused financial harm by potentially forcing the estate to pay amounts that may not have been owed and by obstructing recovery of funds owed to the estate ( including escrow surplus/overpayments/credits ). \n\nEXHIBIXXXX XXXX  EVIDENCE INDEX Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( deceased ) Successor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX. SPS refused to investigate QWR issues ( RESPA violation ) Document : SPS XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Response File : XXXX What SPS Admitted Evidence SPS is only a servicer and does not validate origination, forgiveness, or prior servicing SPS relied on the Note and generic servicing docs instead of investigating errors Violation : 12 CFR 1024.35 & 1024.36 Harm : Estate deprived of validated payoff, escrow, credits, and insurance accounting.\n\n2. SPS admitted insurance existed but refused to investigate it Document : Notice of Servicing Transfer ( BOA SPS ) File : XXXX Evidence Transfer notice states mortgage life / XXXX or optional insurance existed Violation : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Harm : Estate XXXX have paid a debt already covered by insurance. \nXXXX. SPS closed the Successor-in-Interest review illegally Document : XXXX Acknowledgement + Closure File : XXXX Event Evidence XXXX opened and documents required SPS acknowledged receipt of complete SII package ( XX/XX/XXXX ) SPS closed XXXX solely because loan was paid Violation : 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) Harm : Estate blocked from escrow refunds, insurance proceeds, and dispute rights.\n\n4. SPS failed to provide escrow reconciliation at payoff Document : Escrow Analysis Statements File : XXXX Evidence Shows taxes & insurance paid but no final payoff escrow balance or refund Violation : XXXX XXXX XXXX Harm : Estate may be owed escrow surplus and was denied accounting.\n\n5. SPS misrepresented compliance to CFPB Document : SPS XXXX Response File : XXXX Evidence SPS claims issues resolved and payoff provided No payoff ledger, escrow reconciliation, or insurance trace included Violation : 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( UDAAP ) Harm : CFPB was misled while estate remained uncompensated.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T15:23:30.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"75154","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18649416","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2026-01-12T15:03:58.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["B ) Insurance / optional coverage investigation and trace Written confirmation of whether any mortgage-life/disability/optional insurance was associated with the <em>loan</em> at transfer ( as referenced in the transfer notice ) and whether any claim/<em>proceeds</em> were payable/received ; if so, provide dates, amounts, and crediting to the <em>loan</em> balance."]},"sort":[14.391149,"18649416"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17300165","_score":14.020818,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"UNIFIED CFPB COMPLAINT Filed by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX Subject : Credit Acceptance Corp Illegal Repossession Practices, Inaccurate Credit Reporting, Failure to Investigate Disputes ; XXXX  XXXX XXXX  FCRA Violations for Continuing to Report Disputed and Unverified Information I. SUMMARY OF ISSUES This complaint concerns severe violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and consumer-protection obligations by the following entities : Credit Acceptance Corporation ( CAC ) XXXX XXXX All parties have contributed to the continued publication of false, incomplete, misleading, and legally defective information regarding my former auto loan with Credit Acceptance . \n\nThis reporting continues to harm my creditworthiness, resulting in severe adverse economic consequences. \n\nII. CREDITOR INFORMATION CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP Creditor : Credit Acceptance Corporation Account Number : XXXX Account Type : Auto Loan Opened : XX/XX/year> Status : Closed Repossessed Amount Reported Owed : {$12000.00} past due Repossession : Vehicle seized and auctioned but sale proceeds were neither disclosed nor deducted from the stated deficiency balance. \n\nIII. CREDITOR VIOLATIONS ( CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP ) 1. Illegal and Unlawful Repossession Practices Credit Acceptance violated multiple consumer-protection laws by : A. Failing to provide legally required notice BEFORE repossession I received no pre-repossession notice, no right-to-cure opportunity, and no opportunity to bring the account current, violating state-mandated repossession notice requirements and unfair-practices standards. \n\nB. Failing to provide legally required notice AFTER repossession Credit Acceptance did NOT provide : Notice of intent to sell, Notice of auction date/time, Notice of right to reinstatement or redemption, Post-sale accounting of proceeds. \n\nThese omissions violate UCC requirements in all states and constitute unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices ( UDAAP ). \n\nC. Failure to credit proceeds from the auction The repossessed vehicle was auctioned ; however : CAC has not disclosed any sale amount, CAC has not credited any proceeds, CAC is reporting the full pre-sale deficiency, which is inaccurate, misleading, and unlawful. \n\nThis is a violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ) and constitutes deceptive collection conduct under FDCPA 807. \n\n2. Inaccurate, Misleading, and Fraudulent Reporting Credit Acceptance continues to report : A deficiency balance of {$12000.00} No sale credit Incorrect loan amounts Misstated financial obligation Misleading charge-off and repossession codes False dates Omitted dispute notation False claims conflicting with the actual loan contract Thes\n\ne inaccuracies violate : FCRA 607 ( b ) FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) FCRA 623 ( b ) 3. Continued collection attempts after a Cease-and-Desist demand FDCPA Violations I previously issued a formal cease-and-desist order to Credit Acceptance. Despite this, I continue receiving : Collection communications Demands for payment Threatening language Attempts to collect the disp\nuted deficiency These actions violate : FDCPA 805 ( c ) continued communication after cease-and-desist FDCPA 806 harassment and abuse FDCPA 807 false or misleading representations These violations entitle me to damages under FDCPA 813, including statutory penalties up to {$1000.00} per violation, plus actual damages. \n\nIV. CREDIT BUREAU VIOLATIONS ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX  and XXXX  are also in violation of the FCRA for their handling of this account. \n\n1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation FCRA 611 ( a ) I disputed the account with both bureaus regarding : The repossession The deficiency amount The missing auction proceeds The incorrect balance The failure of CAC to properly notify me The failure of CAC to respond to my verification demands However, both bureaus : Returned generic form responses Failed to obtain documentation Did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Continued to report unverifiable information Violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \n\n2. Failure to Mark the Account as Disputed FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Despite multiple disputes, neither bureau has properly marked the account as Consumer Disputes This Account. \n\nThis omission materially harms me by : Making the derogatory item appear undisputed Misleading future lenders Creating a false impression of liability This is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). \n\n3. Reporting Inaccurate and Unverified Information FCRA 607 ( b ) XXXX  and XXXX  continue to publish information that is : Inaccurate Incomplete Unsupported Legally defective Unverified This violates their statutory duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \n\n4. Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Because Credit Acceptance has not : Provided verification, Provided documentation, Provided proof of the deficiency, Provided proof of auction proceeds, Provided pre/post-repossession notices, the bureaus must delete the information. \n\nTheir failure to do so violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ). \n\n5. Reinsertion Without Certification FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) If the bureaus previously removed or corrected disputed information, they may NOT reinsert it without : Certification from the furnisher, and Written notice to me within 5 business days. \n\nTo date, neither requirement has been met. \n\nV. ONGOING HARM EXPERIENCED The false reporting and unlawful collection activity have resulted in : Denial of credit Higher interest rates Loss of financial opportunity Emotional distress Reputational damage Decreased credit score and creditworthiness Continuing financial harm These injuries constitute grounds for actual damages, statutory penalties, and enforcement action. \n\nVI. RELIEF REQUESTED I respectfully request that the CFPB require : A. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP Delete the entire auto-loan account immediately Cease all collection activity Provide full accounting of auction proceeds Provide copies of pre-repo and post-repo notices Pay statutory penalties for FDCPA violations Correct all inaccuracies permanently Confirm compliance in writing B. XXXX XXXX XXXX Immediately delete the disputed account due to unverifiable information Mark the account as disputed until deletion is complete Provide documentation of any verification received from CAC Conduct a legally compliant reinvestigation under 611 Cease furnishing false or misleading information Provide certification of deletions and corrections VII. CONCLUSION Credit Acceptance Corporation, XXXX, and XXXX  have collectively violated federal consumer-protection laws, resulting in significant harm. \nThe pattern of unlawful repossession practices, failure to credit auction proceeds, continued collection after cease-and-desist, and refusal to properly investigate disputes demonstrates systemic non-compliance that warrants CFPB intervention. \n\nI request full deletion, enforcement action, and all remedies available under FCRA and FDCPA.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T19:38:22.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"07050","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17300165","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-11-17T19:34:17.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP Delete the entire auto-<em>loan</em> account immediately Cease all collection activity Provide full accounting of auction <em>proceeds</em> Provide copies of pre-repo and post-repo notices Pay statutory penalties for FDCPA violations Correct all inaccuracies permanently Confirm <em>compliance</em> in writing B."]},"sort":[14.020818,"17300165"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6970224","_score":13.840604,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"During Hurricane Ian, the Complainant sustained damage to his property and opened a claim with his homeowner 's insurance company, seeking compensation for Coverage B Other Structure, Coverage C Personal Property, and Reimbursement for Additional Expenses. \n\nDue to the excessively high volume of Hurricane Ian claims and resultant lengthy processing times, the Complainant and insurance company entered into negotiations in good faith, culminating in a settlement and release agreement. The agreement provided a total payment of {$41000.00}, which covered all losses for which Plaintiff was eligible. \n\nThe Complainant insurance company issued a check for {$41000.00}, which included payments for Coverage B Other Structure ( {$8000.00} ), Coverage C Personal Property ( {$23000.00} ), and Additional Expenses ( {$9600.00} ). \n\nUpon receipt of the insurance company 's check, Complainant contacted XXXX the mortgage servicer for his property, via telephone. \n\nFollowing XXXX 's instructions, Complainant endorsed the insurance company 's check, included required documents and a prepaid label for its return via the United States Postal Service priority mail to Defendant. \n\nComplainant received an initial correspondence from Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX, which set out the process for disbursing the insurance proceeds. The correspondence stated that if the Total Loss Proceeds ( T.L.P. ) were less than or equal to {$10000.00} and all necessary documentation was provided, XXXX would issue a check for the total loss within XXXX business days. \n\nComplainant provided XXXX with all required documentation no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nComplainant promptly responded to all additional requests for information made by XXXX, including a copy of the settlement and release, self-repair affidavit, personal property inventory list, adjuster report, two prepaid overnight labels, and direct deposit information. \n\nThe XXXX. is calculated solely on the portion of the insurance proceeds for which the lender has a security interest, except for a total loss or an agreement to the contrary. Neither of these exceptions applies to the Complainant 's situation ; therefore, the Complainant 's XXXX. is {$8000.00}. \n\nThe Security Instrument executed between the parties on XX/XX/XXXX, defines the DMIs security interest, which is limited exclusively to the \" real property serving as collateral for the loan, along with all improvements, easements, appurtenances, and fixtures now or hereafter a part of the property, '' including all replacements and additions. \n\nPersonal Property and Reimbursements should not included in the XXXX. calculation and should not be included in the Complainant 's XXXX. calculation. The Complainant 's XXXX. is {$8000.00}. \n\nAs an XXXX. lender, XXXX must promptly release all insurance settlement proceeds received for coverage of the XXXX 's XXXX XXXX, temporary housing, and other transition expenses to the XXXX. \n\nXXXX has not disbursed the total insurance proceeds under {$10000.00} to XXXX. Instead, XXXX has only disbursed {$370.00}, less than 5 % of the XXXX. of {$8000.00}, in contrast to the process outlined in the initial correspondence. \n\nIn reliance on the validity of XXXX 's insurance proceeds disbursement process, as outlined in the initial correspondence, XXXX commenced and completed most of the patio replacement work at his own expense. \n\nUpon XXXX 's inquiry about the remaining XXXX. funds, XXXX requested XXXX information, estimates, and inspection scheduling, despite previously approving self-repair and not required per the process outlined by XXXX if XXXX T.L.P. is less than {$10000.00}. \n\nComplainant has provided photographs of the newly laid concrete slab and receipts totaling {$8000.00} for the patio cover and needed materials to install the slab. \n\nDespite receiving all required and not required documents and in contrast to the initial correspondence, XXXX refused to release the T.L.P. until after an inspection, EVEN THOUGH the T.L.P. is less than {$10000.00} and much more than XXXX business days have elapsed. \n\nXXXX 's failure to disperse the remaining {$7700.00} within XXXX business days has forced XXXX to endure unnecessary expenses, causing undue hardship for him and his family. \n\nAs a result of XXXX 's actions, Complainant has suffered actual damages, including but not limited to the inability to fully repair his damaged property, loss of use of his property, and significant undue financial hardship for having to come out of pocket for cost. \n\nThe undue and unnecessary financial hardship had detrimentally impacted the Complainant and his familys well being, causing stress, anxiety, and XXXX. It has lead to a decreased quality of life, and negatively affect relationships. Also to the loss of opportunities for personal growth and development. \n\nXXXX has violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ( \" RESPA '' ), by failing to promptly disburse insurance settlement proceeds received for coverage of XXXX 's personal property and additional expenses, as required by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( k ). \n\nXXXX 's failure to disburse the total amount of the insurance proceeds under {$10000.00} to XXXX, per its initial correspondence, is a violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( k ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX 's conduct in requiring additional documentation and an inspection for the disbursement of the remaining insurance proceeds, despite having already approved self-repair and having received all the necessary documentation, is a violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( k ) ( XXXX ) ( B ). \n\nXXXX is subject to TILA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. XXXX requires that, among other things, lenders disclose the cost of credit, including finance charges and the annual percentage rate ( A.P.R. ). XXXX violated TILA by failing abide by the disclosed the terms and conditions for disbursement of the insurance settlement proceeds and the calculation of the T.L.P. \n\nXXXX failed to disclose that it would only disburse a small percentage of the XXXX, despite receiving all required documentation and the T.L.P. being less than {$10000.00}. \n\nXXXX conduct constitutes a violation of XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. \n\nXXXX engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by failing to disburse the insurance proceeds under {$10000.00} to XXXX, despite receiving all required documentation and the XXXX. being less than {$10000.00}. \n\nXXXX also engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by requesting additional information and inspection scheduling after previously approving self-repair and not requiring XXXX. disbursement if it is less than {$10000.00}, although the fact that the XXXX. being less than {$10000.00} and much more than XXXX business days have elapsed. \n\nDMIs actions were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. \n\nComplainant and XXXX entered a contract by which XXXX agreed to service the mortgage on XXXX 's property. \n\nAccording to the contract, XXXX agreed to release the insurance settlement proceeds to Complainant for coverage of XXXX 's XXXX XXXX, temporary housing, and other transition expenses. \n\nXXXX has breached the contract by failing to release the remaining XXXX. funds to Complainant within XXXX business days as outlined in the initial correspondence, despite receiving all required documentation and Complainant has had to commenced and completed most of the patio replacement work at his own expense. \n\nXXXX owes XXXX a fiduciary duty to act in XXXX 's best interests regarding the disbursement of insurance proceeds for coverage of a XXXX 's XXXX XXXX, temporary housing, and other transition expenses. \n\nXXXX has breached its fiduciary duty to Complainant by failing to promptly release the insurance settlement proceeds if the T.L.P is less than {$10000.00} within XXXX business days as disseminated by XXXX 's as their state loss proceeds distribution process. \n\nXXXX breached its fiduciary duty to Complainant by requiring unnecessary inspections and documents, despite previously approving self-repair and not requiring XXXX. if it is less than {$10000.00}. \n\nXXXX breached its fiduciary duty to Complainant by failing to act in XXXX best interests and by causing Complainant undue hardship, which could have been avoided if XXXX has acted promptly and in good faith. \n\nXXXX owed a duty of care to Complainant o disburse the insurance proceeds per the mortgage agreement terms, process outline and applicable law. \n\nXXXX breached this duty of care by failing to disburse the total amount of the insurance proceeds to Complainant promptly and adequately, despite Complainants compliance with all requests for documentation. \n\nXXXX 's breach of duty of care caused XXXX to suffer damages, including but not limited to the inability to fully repair his damaged property, loss of use of his property, and significant undue financial hardship. \n\nXXXX 's breach of its duty of care was the proximate cause of XXXX 's damages. \n\nXXXX XXXX conduct was negligent and reckless and showed a conscious disregard for Complainants right and laws. \n\nXXXX 's conduct constituted negligence per XXXX under Florida law, as XXXX violated its duty of care under the applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines. \n\nDMIs conduct resulted from its negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct. \n\nXXXX has been unjustly enriched at XXXX 's expense by failing to disburse the remaining Total Loss Proceeds ( T.L.P. ) under the XXXX XXXX and Florida law. \n\nXXXX has received the insurance settlement proceeds from Complainants insurance company and has failed to disburse the remaining XXXX. within the timeframe provided for in the initial correspondence. \n\nXXXX has failed to release the T.L.P. as outlined in the initial correspondence, instead delaying, and impeding the disbursement process by imposing additional requirements and scheduling an unnecessary inspection. \n\nXXXX 's retention of the remaining XXXX. without justification constitutes unjust XXXX knew or should have known that its actions would result in XXXX 's undue hardship, yet XXXX has continued to act disregarding XXXX 's rights and interests. \n\nXXXX has benefited from its retention of the XXXX. at the expense of XXXX. \n\nXXXX retention of the remaining XXXX. under the circumstances described herein is inequitable, unjust, and against the principles of fairness and equity.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-12T21:19:57.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"33770","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6970224","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.","date_received":"2023-05-12T20:26:28.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Following XXXX 's instructions, Complainant endorsed the insurance company 's check, included required documents and a prepaid label for its return via the United <em>States</em> Postal Service priority mail to Defendant. \n\nComplainant received an initial correspondence from Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX, <em>which</em> set out the process for disbursing the insurance <em>proceeds</em>."]},"sort":[13.840604,"6970224"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8001467","_score":12.891853,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing on behalf of NewRez has not provided clear guidance and direction for the sale of our property via the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX assumption program. Due to the severe compartmentalization of their organization, receiving clear guidance and direction has been very illusive. \n\nSince my original CFPB complaint dated XXXX with reference # XXXX, the loan servicer has responded. In accordance with their response, we attempted to get clarification from XXXX XXXX, NewRez Compliance with little success. Specifically and quoted from the response : \" After further review of the assumption received XXXX XXXX XXXX the following items are still needed : - IRS Form W-9 - Seller 's Certificate of Eligibility - XXXX - XXXX '' XXXX concerns that must be addressed and clarified : - It is believed that they have a mislabeled the required party for submission of the VA Certificate of Eligibility ( COE ) . The \" Seller 's COE '' was part of the initial loan when the property was purchased and exists today as the guarantee of the loan serviced by NewRez. It is believed that the respondent meant to list \" Buyer 's COE '' as a condition and required document, but continued efforts to get this corrected have not been addressed. This is resulting in serious confusion for all parties. \n- XXXX is not a document number in the VA system XXXX I assume the respondent labeled this in error and meant to list XXXX. Continued efforts to get this corrected have not been addressed. \n\nIn accordance with the VA lenders handbook and VA lender guidelines, NewRez continues to send conflicting guidance and guidance that is in conflict with the CFPB response annotated above. Specifically, XXXX XXXX listed on her response, \" If you are unable to bring the loan current with sale proceeds and would like to be review [ XXXX ] for an assumption with a loan modification, please contact our XXXX XXXX Department at ( XXXX ) XXXX for additional assistance. '' Mutliple concerns come from this statement and highlight a disjointed position by the leadership and management of Shellpoint/NewRez : - We can and will bring the loan current with sale proceeds. The current estimate of total proceeds at settlement is {$160000.00}. Covering forbearance and delinquent payments with nearly {$95000.00} remaining. The VA has accounted for this via a XX/XX/2023 circular relating to assumptions [ see attached ]. The loss mitigation single point of contact ( SPOC ), XXXX XXXX, has made it clear that we CAN NOT do a modification to an assumption. She further states that all necessary documents must be submitted for the assumption but can not ensure other departments of the servicer will allow for an assumption to continue given the status of the loan. All of these statements seem to ultimately conflict with VA guidance. 1. We can not modify and assume -- which prevents us from recovering from a COVID forbearance, and 2. We can not NOT modify because a loan in a delinquent status might and possibly likely be denied by the other departments of the lender. What options exist for me to recover from tragic life events and sell my home if the lender is unwilling to commit to the guidelines outlined by the VA and designed to protect military veterans like my wife and me? \nXXXX NewRez has stated that the loan has no investor-specific exclusions in conflict with the VA lender guidelines , the only assumption I am left to make is that the lender is choosing to not support our efforts to sell our property and pay the servicer in full for any delinquent payments. A complaint has been filed with the VA as well as a complaint with the Inspector General of the VA, in order to seek mutually beneficial outcomes for all parties. \n- The servicer does not list the necessity of the buyer to submit a Loan Application, HUD/VA addendum in their requests for document, according to the previous respondent. In consultation with the servicer, they have made it clear that the buyer has not and must submit this application. This conflicting guidance and references continue to aggregate and stall the selling of our property to willing buyers. The buyer was made aware of the necessary documents on or around XXXX 2023, their inability to perform is noted, but the lender 's inability to clearly articulate to the buyer all necessary forms continues to contribute to a total breakdown in communication. \n\nThe position we are in with regards to the selling of our property is largely due to the poor and disjointed communication of the lender to all parties. My representatives are stating a possible path forward, the interested buyers are communication with XXXX XXXX ( loan XXXX ) and receiving contradictory information. After a confirmation call with XXXX XXXX, it is clear that the information he is providing the buyers is in direct conflict with the information provided by the initial respondent as well as my SPOC. \n\nThe servicer appears to have made this assumption process difficult to navigate and a labyrinth of miscommunications. At this point, clear communication in necessary to ensure we can sell our home. \n1. In accordance with VA Pamphlet 26-7 Lenders Handbook, Chapter 5, Topic 7, subsection F, \" The loan must be current or will be brought current at the closing of the sales transaction. '' Will Shellpoint/NewRez adhere to VA guidelines and allow this assumption to process and continue to settlement, with the delinquency being resolved and loan restored to current with sales proceeds? ( this clause is regardless of buyer 's specific performance and/or ability to qualify ). \nXXXX. If all parties submit all necessary documents, will NewRez assign an assumption manager to clear up communication shortfalls in the process -- as annotated on their assumptions information document?\n\n3. Why did Shellpoint/NewRez fail to notify me or the buyers on the documentation shortfalls when the initial request was submitted on XXXX We have yet to receive any clear communication from the \" Assumptions Department '' of NewRez on a path forward. \nXXXX. Due to the extended nature of this process, if all parties were to submit necessary documents, will NewRez expedite the process of assumption in order to prevent further deliquency? \n\nI have submitted congressional requests for support from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and Congressman Steny XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX I have also retained the support of two law firms to navigate this process, as my financial future depends on more clear and deliberate action to achieve resolution. Lastly, I have submitted a formal complaint via the VA to seek advocacy and reinforcement of the lending standards all VA lenders are required to adhere to.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-14T19:17:51.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"92065","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8001467","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2023-12-14T17:50:58.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Delays with the closing process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She further <em>states</em> that all necessary documents must be submitted for the assumption but can not ensure other departments of the servicer will allow for an assumption to continue given the status of the <em>loan</em>. All of these statements seem to ultimately conflict with VA guidance. 1. We can not modify and assume -- <em>which</em> prevents us from recovering from a COVID forbearance, and 2."]},"sort":[12.891853,"8001467"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8726216","_score":11.961782,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I XXXX as XXXX number holder for XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX the account in question, I am writing to address the debt collection activities being pursued by World Omni Finacial Corp dba Southeast Toyota I request clarification on the following. \n\nA negotiable instrument was sent registered mail on XX/XX/XXXX to the office of structured finance at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX. \nIn responding to this complaint let me know not only did XXXXld Omni Finacial Corp dba Southeast Toyota get my negotable instrument they also got my rescission letter to revoke any and all of my security interest within the contract that I may have given them knowing and unknowingly and the right to reposes. \nI never received a response from World Omni Financial dba Southeast Toyota as they stated until I filed this complaint which is a total disregard to me as a consumer and breach of contract. \nA failure to arbitrate or notify me is also a breach of contract and their fiduciary duty to the obligor. \nXXXX XXXX Failure to Arbitrate under agreement. \nI have looked over my contract I also stated that I had found numerous federal law violations taken where a finance charge was involved as well as Security and XXXX XXXX. Furthermore I entered into this contract with a financial asset which paid for the car. XXXX XXXX have willfully uninformed me of the disclosures. \nXXXX. Full XXXX of my rights to rescind. \nXXXX. Failed to let me know the contract was a financial asset. \nXXXX. Misrepresentation of the finance charge. \n\nUnder Truth In Lending ( TILA ) it is illegal for a car dealership to take Federal Reserve Notes ( cash ) where a finance charge is in existence. The amount finance charge was what the XXXX XXXX gave me to spend. Inadequate XXXX is XXXX of the main purposes for XXXX which is a federal law designed to protect consumers in their dealings with lenders and creditors. Incorrect Annual Percentage Rate calculations required lenders to disclose the XXXX of a loan this should not only include the interest rate but also other cost and fees associated with the loan. \nI ask that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Provide me with a breakdown of fees including how they calculated what they claim I owe. \nXXXX. Provide a copy of my signature on a contract or document that holds me responsible for this alleged debt. \nXXXX. Send me proof that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has the legal authority to enforce debt obligations of the United States on my behalf, as outlined in Title XXXX XXXX XXXX section XXXX regarding obligation or other security of the United States laws. Section XXXX XXXX of law XXXX. Provide me proof that you are licensed to collect debt in the state of Georgia. XXXX XXXX means XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Florida XXXX. \nXXXX. Send this information to my address listed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Georgia XXXX accept this letter as a formal debt validation request, which I am allowed under XXXX According to the Trust Agreement between World XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Depositor, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Owner Trustee dated XX/XX/XXXX and the Indentured XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Account Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust Indenture Act of XXXX Article XXXX the trust certificates, XXXX Registration of Transfer and exchange of trust certificates. XXXX Mutilated, Destroyed, Lost or stolen Trust Certificates XXXX Persons deemed Owners would be Me the creator which makes me the Bona-fide Purchaser. Section XXXX is Actions by Owner Trustee which is the trustee duty to me as an owner. Article XXXX Application of XXXX Funds ; Certain Duties; including methods of payments XXXX XXXX and reports to the certificate holders, the XXXX XXXX XXXX and others. The XXXX form and the XXXX form was supposed to be sent to me the obligor, beneficiary of the note per my wet signature and line of credit. I never reciprocated either but I sent them to the company according to their response. In waiting for my IRS audit I believe that XXXX XXXX is filing XXXX on my behalf According to this Indenture agreement and me being the obligor of the security in question. This Indenture, as dated XX/XX/XXXX ( this \" Indenture '' is among WORLD XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Delaware statutory XXXX ( \" the Issuing Entity '' ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX national banking XXXX XXXX XXXX Indenture Trustee XXXX XXXX \" Indenture Trustee '' ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX national banking XXXX XXXX XXXX account bank XXXX XXXX Account Bank XXXX XXXX. \nEach party agrees as follows for the benefit of the other party and for the equal and ratable benefit of the HOLDERS of the Issuing Entity 's Class XXXX 5.217 % assest-backed notes, XXXX XXXX ( the \" Class XXXX Notes '' ), XXXX 5.47 % asset-backed notes, XXXX XXXX ( the Class XXXX Notes '' ), Class XXXX Floating Rate Asset-backed, XXXX XXXX ( the \" Class XXXX notes '' and together with the Class XXXX Notes '' ), Class XXXX 5.07 % Assest-backed Notes, XXXX XXXX ( the \" Class XXXX Notes '' ), Class XXXX 5.04 % Assest-backed Notes, XXXX XXXX ( the \" Class XXXX Notes '' and together with the class XXXX Notes the Class XXXX Notes and the Class XXXX Notes, the Class A notes '' ), and the Class B 5.28 % assest backed Notes, XXXX XXXX ( the \" XXXX XXXX Notes '' and together with the Class A Notes, the Notes '' ) : Granting Clause according to the companies XXXX prospectous The issuing Entity, to secure the payment of principal of and interest on, and any other amounts owing in respect of, the Notes XXXX and ratably without prejudice, priority or distinction except as set forth herein, and to secure compliance with the provisions of this Indenture, hereby grants in trust to the Indenture Trustee on the closing date, as trustee for benefit of the NOTEHOLDERS, all of such person 's right, title and interest, whether now owned or hereafter aquired, in and to ( i ) the Trust Estate and ( ii ) all present and future claims, demands, causes and choses in action in respect of any or XXXX XXXX the forgoing and all payments on or under and all proceeds of every kind and nature whatsoever in respect of any or all forgoing, including all proceeds of the conversion, voluntary or involuntary, into cash or other liquid property, all cash proceeds, accounts, accounts receivable, notes, drafts, and acceptances, XXXX XXXX, checks, deposit accounts, insurance proceeds, condemnation awards, rights to payment of any and every kind and other forms of obligations and Receivables, instruments, securities, financial assests and other property that at any time constitute all or part of or are included in the proceeds of any of the forgoing ( collectively the \" Collateral '' ), in each case as such terms are defined herein. \nThe foregoing XXXX is made in trust to secure the payment of the principal of and interest on, and any other amounts owing in respect of, the XXXX equally and fatally without prejudice, priority or distinction, and to secure compliance with the provisions of this Indenture, all as provided in this Indenture. \nThe Indenture Trustee, as Trustee on behalf of the Noteholders, acknowledges the foregoing XXXX, accepts the trusts under this Indenture and agrees to perform its duties required in this Indenture in accordance with the provisions of this Indenture. \n\nA thorough investigation would have noted that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is where the XXXX is perfected in Delaware and it is on the Title of the car not the actual collateral when it is for personal, homes and goods. I request clarification on the legal and XXXX possession of the Notes and Agreements I signed with the aforementioned entities. I assert that the holder in due course must demonstrate authority to enforce the original agreement, and if the note and agreement are separated trust must be established. I declare myself as the original grantor and place my standing as benefactor. I would like to affirm that I am not avoiding any obligations and I would appreciate your organization prompt response to this inquiry or cease and desist from debt collection and XXXX out the account by merging any other memorandum accounts to settle the account.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-08T16:09:09.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30310","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8726216","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"World Omni Financial Corp.","date_received":"2024-04-08T13:52:44.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company explaining amount owed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Inadequate XXXX is XXXX of the main purposes for XXXX <em>which</em> is a federal law designed to protect consumers in their dealings with lenders and creditors. Incorrect Annual Percentage Rate calculations required lenders to disclose the XXXX of a <em>loan</em> this should not only include the interest rate but also other cost and fees associated with the <em>loan</em>. \nI ask that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Provide me with a breakdown of fees including how they calculated what they claim I owe. \nXXXX."],"product":["Vehicle <em>loan</em> or lease"],"sub_product":["<em>Loan</em>"]},"sort":[11.961782,"8726216"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1903299","_score":11.721358,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am an attorney and the settlement agent for a real estate closing on Florida property that \" took place '' in my offices in XXXX on Wednesday, XXXX XXXX, 2016. The buyer, XXXX XXXX, had obtained a mortgage through XXXX, through Mortgage Lenders of America , LLC ( \" MLA '' ). After signing all of the loan documents, we forwarded copies via e-mail to MLA and received an email from XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXXXXXX ) giving us authorization to fund the loan, meaning that they accepted the paperwork. The seller had already signed the deed conveying the property to XXXX XXXX, so we believed that we were closed. \nHowever, the wire from MLA, for the loan proceeds had not yet hit my XXXX ( Escrow ) Account. We assumed ( wrongfully ) that the wire had not been initiated until funding approval was given, so we expected that the wire would hit the account by XXXX XXXX the following morning. We found out Thursday morning that the wire which was sent through XXXX Bank was rejected by my bank ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) because the initiator of the wire had NOT followed my written wire instructions. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's compliance department rejected the wire because the memo on the wire merely stated \" XXXX XXXX ''. Our wire instructions specifically told them to put the following on the memo : File No. : XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX. Had they followed these instructions, the wire would have gone through. Because they did not follow the instructions, the wire was rejected, with questions to XXXX about the wire to see whether they would be able to accept it. No response was ever provided by XXXX. \nMy office contacted numerous people at MLA ( including XXXX, the closing coordinator ) to explain to them that they needed to re-wire the money, using the correct information that we had provided. XXXX XXXX said that they would re-wire, but could only rewire using the same information that was on the previous wire. We arranged with XXXX XXXX XXXX to have that wire intercepted before it got to compliance, assuming that XXXX XXXX gave us notice of when it was being sent, so that it would not be rejected. The wire was NOT re-sent on Thursday, XXXX XXXX, 2016, despite the fact that the funds had been sent back to and apparently received by XXXX Bank on Wednesday, XXXX XXXX, 2016. \nMy office has been e-mailing and on the phone with MLA and XXXX Bank all day today and as of XXXX on Friday, XXXX XXXX, 2016, we learned that XXXX Bank has NOT re-sent the wire, as they as still waiting for MLA to give them instructions to re-sent the wire. \nAt this point, I have a seller that is ready to sue me and have my license to practice law revoked because of the lack of funds ( despite the fact that I have not released the deed for recording, nor released any of the original documents to MLA, letting MLA know that we would not release the loan documents until funding was received. MLA 's failure to timely correct their mistake is placing XXXX XXXX in jeopardy of being sued by the seller and me in jeopardy of having to explain myself to the Florida Bar. While I know that I have done nothing wrong, the time and expense of having to respond to something like this makes this highly stressful. \nMLA should, at the very least, be heavily fined for making a loan without funding it properly, for failing to timely correct its own mistake and in my opinion, should be banned from making loans in the United States. \nPlease do something about this.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-04-29T18:38:09.000Z","issue":"Settlement process and costs","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"34243","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1903299","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MORTGAGE LENDERS OF AMERICA","date_received":"2016-04-29T18:38:08.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["MLA should, at the very least, be heavily fined for making a <em>loan</em> without funding it properly, for failing to timely correct its own mistake and in my opinion, should be banned from making <em>loans</em> in the United <em>States</em>. \nPlease do something about this."]},"sort":[11.721358,"1903299"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10391880","_score":11.545482,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Flagship Credit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Federal Trade Commission Fraud Report number : XXXX Settlement Demand : Due to your actions, the Plaintiff is requesting a settlement payment of {$46000.00} to be issued via check and mailed to the address listed below. This proposal is intended to resolve this matter amicably and avoid litigation, remaining valid for a period of 14 days from the Effective Date. I assert that this amount is justifiable, considering the severity of the violations that have occurred over the past XXXX years. \n\n\" Predatory lending '' is a term typically used to describe unconscionable lending practices where a borrower is provided with an unfair loan. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), which regulates and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations, has described predatory lending as the disregard of basic principles of loan underwriting.\n\nTILA lists several disclosures that must be provided to the borrower, and if the creditor doesn't do so, it will be liable to pay damages in an amount equal to the sum of the following : any actual damages sustained by a person as a result of the failure, and statutory damages ( limited to twice the finance charge, but not less than {$400.00} and not more than {$4000.00} ).\n\n( 15 U.S.C. 1640 [ a ] [ 1 ], [ 2 ] ).\n\nI am writing to formally address a violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) related to my account and to articulate and express the severe damages this situation has caused in my life. This has led to difficulties in managing my monthly budget and fulfilling other essential obligations. \nEmotional Distress : The stress and XXXX caused by navigating this situation have severely affected my mental well-being. I have found myself preoccupied with financial concerns, which has impacted my personal relationships and overall quality of life. \n\nLoss of Opportunities : Due to the unexpected financial burdens imposed by the violation, I have missed out on investments, loans for other purposes, or necessary purchases to provide for my home, which has further compounded my distress. This breach not only caused immediate monetary losses but also severely impacted my creditworthiness, leading to increased difficulty in obtaining future financing and higher interest rates on subsequent loans. The culmination of these actions has caused significant emotional distress and financial instability, forcing me to reevaluate my long-term financial plans. \nThe CFPB, which was created by the Dodd-Frank Act, has broad regulatory and enforcement authority over entities offering consumer financial services or products, including non-bank commercial companies in the business of extending credit and servicing consumer loan. The CFPB is authorized to write regulations under federal consumer financial protection laws, including those prohibiting unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ), and to examine certain financial institutions for compliance with such laws. \nThe CFPB can remediate violations of consumer protection laws in a number of ways, including imposing civil money penalties and requiring institutions to provide customer restitution and to improve their compliance management systems. \n\n16 CFR 433.2-ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF.\n\nRECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\nUpon reviewing my contract, I note that under the Arbitration Provision, it states : \" Neither you nor we waive the right to arbitrate by utilizing self-help remedies, such as repossession, or by initiating legal action to recover the vehicle, to pursue a deficiency balance, or for individual injunctive relief. '' The repossession of this vehicle was conducted without the requisite arbitration, constituting a breach of your contractual obligations. I hereby request an Asset Representation Review for this account. I maintain a security interest in this purchase money loan/retail installment contract, and I have not received my proceeds. The application serves as the Security Collateral, thereby designating this contract as an Asset-Backed Security. \nI respectfully assert as a Stockholder/Investor in your company that I have diligently fulfilled my obligations regarding this account since its inception. However, I have inadvertently been tendering debt notes ( FRNs ) to offset this account, as another negotiable instrument or debt instrument can not properly settle this balance. My actions have been made under conditions of misrepresentation, and I am formally requesting a refund. \n\nLawful money is currency issued by the United States Treasury, such as gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve Act of XXXX, which established the Federal Reserve System and authorizes it to issue Federal Reserve notes, states that [ Federal Reserve notes ] shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington XXXX District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. \n\nI hereby rescind the security interest related to Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC and XXXX of XXXX XXXX for all fiscal years and reporting periods. Furthermore, I am revoking the XXXX XXXX XXXX dealership and Flagship Credit Acceptance as beneficiaries of my XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX insurance. With respect to Page XXXX of the Retail Installment Contract : XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice Claim Procedure, I formally revoke Flagship Credit Acceptance and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as beneficiaries of my XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX insurance. \nXXXX Elements Of A Contract : -Offer -Acceptance -Consideration, -Intention to create legal relations. \n\nThe absence of valid consideration can lead to a claim of breach, as XXXX party may not fulfill their contractual obligations.\n\nI have attached and highlighted key sections within your company 's SEC Filing Prospectus that require your attention and resolution. \n\nPrevious Court Case With Your Corporation Violating ECOA : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX Civil Action XXXX XXXX. SECURITIES ACCOUNT ; ACQUISITION OF SECURITY ENTITLEMENT FROM SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Equity Interests shall mean, with respect to any Person, its equity ownership interests, its common stock and any other capital stock or other equity ownership units of such Person authorized from time to time, and any other shares, options, interests, participations or other equivalents ( however designated ) of or in such Person, whether voting or nonvoting, including common stock, options, warrants, preferred stock, phantom stock, membership units ( common or preferred ), stock appreciation rights, membership unit appreciation rights, convertible notes or debentures, stock purchase rights, membership unit purchase rights and all securities convertible, exercisable or exchangeable, in whole or in part, into any XXXX or more of the foregoing. \n\n\nADDRESSING FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC CORRESPONDENCE She also stated Flagship failed to cancel her debt using an IRS Form 1099-C she previously sent us, that Flagship has not sent her any proceeds for using her securities, and she cited multiple other legal theories for why she believes she does not owe Flagship under her contract.\n\n1.- In my previous correspondence, I indicated that Flagship Credit Acceptance has not issued a 1099-C form. I formally requested this documentation from your financial institution but have yet to receive it.\n\n-Page 3, Section 2 Contract- Your Promise To Us : This secures payment of all you owe on this contract. It also secures all other agreements in this contract as the law allows.\n\nSo please in writing explain how I owe FlagShip Credit Acceptance LLC? When The Application Is The Security Collateral - 31 CFR 202.6 - Collateral security.\n\n2. We responded to them all and included the relevant validation information, and we advised that our reporting is accurate. \n-I acknowledge your response regarding the claims related to the reporting on my consumer report, and I appreciate the removal of said reporting. I have also contacted the number you provided, and I was informed that LaQuesa would return my call ; however, I have yet to receive any follow-up. Additionally, there has been no response or resolution regarding my claims of security fraud, tax fraud, deceptive lending practices, the security interest associated with this account, or the principal balance. \nI, Herbey accept all Titles, All Rights, All Interest, and Guaranteed Equity owed to Principal XXXX XXXX. I hereby instruct CFO XXXX XXXX XXXX to apply Principals Balance to Principal Account # XXXX. \n\nWhat Does the Security Law Regulate?\n\nThe securities law provides the rules by which business owners and governmental bodies can raise money for their organizations by selling stocks and bonds to investors. The Securities Act of XXXX regulates the offer and sale of securities in the United States. If an investor buys a security ( stock or bond ), he has a right to a share of the company 's profits. \nThe Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) enforces the laws and regulations under this act and investigates violations. \nThere are XXXX categories of behavior related to executing an illegal scheme : defraud somebody in connection with commodities, options, or securities transactions ; obtain money by false pretenses, representations, or promises related with a commodity or securities transaction. \nInsider trading is the trading of a companys securities by individuals with access to confidential or material nonpublic information about the company. Taking advantage of this privileged access is considered a breach of the individuals fiduciary duty. \nIn light of recent developments, If necessary, I will pursue legal action for Tax & Security Fraud. Moving forward, my estate will assume responsibility for this account/XXXX. Should this matter remain unresolved by the CFPB, I will escalate my complaint to the OCC, and subsequently, I will report/whistle blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission if this situation is not addressed in a legally compliant manner outside of the court system. \n\nMailing Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-22T17:39:27.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"23607","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10391880","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FC HoldCo LLC","date_received":"2024-10-09T16:02:52.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The CFPB can remediate violations of consumer protection laws in a number of ways, including imposing civil money penalties and requiring institutions to provide customer restitution and to improve their <em>compliance</em> management systems. \n\n16 CFR 433.2-ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES <em>WHICH</em> THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE <em>PROCEEDS</em> HEREOF."],"product":["Vehicle <em>loan</em> or lease"],"sub_product":["<em>Loan</em>"],"sub_issue":["<em>Loan</em> balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold"]},"sort":[11.545482,"10391880"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22596398","_score":11.398081,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America , N.A .\n\nAttention : Notice of Error and Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Counsels - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX .\n\nBank of Americas XX/XX/XXXX letter is a DOE and legally deficient, factually incomplete, and deliberately evasive. Bank of America, can not simultaneously claim that their response is provided under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, while also arguing that the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence forwarded by XXXX XXXX was not a proper Notice of Error or Request for Information because it was not sent to your designated address. Regulation X does not permit a servicer to invoke its protections when convenient and disclaim its obligations when inconvenient.\n\nYour letter repeatedly states that no errors were identified and no corrections are required. These conclusory assertions are insufficient. You fail to describe the scope of any investigation performed, the systems or custodians searched, the retention policies applied, or the specific documents relied upon for each determination.\n\nA bare conclusion does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X.\n\nError 1 HOA Payment Misapplication Your claim that all payments were applied correctly and that you have no record of any HOA payment misapplication is not credible. Bank of America has no authority to decide whether HOA payment errors occurred in this account. The U.S. government, via XXXX XXXX and other federal agencies, hired a third party who determined who has already conducted an audit and identified errors in the handling of the HOA and on this loan. That finding alone is supersedes Bank of America and it is sufficient to establish that servicing errors took place. Bank of America, with all their law firms, is not a regulatory agency and can not simply override or ignore a government audit by issuing a self-serving statement that it found no error.\n\nMoreover, the Loan History Statement you attached does not address the critical period when the property was under the control of your preservation contractors, ( Who admitted the locks were changed without authorization, and when the property was severely damaged.\n\nBank of America generated an AI letter as the HOA matter does not pertain to Bank of America. Furthermore, Bank of America, does not have access to accounting information nevertheless any ledger, accounting statement, or distribution record showing the actual amounts paid to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from the foreclosure sale proceeds, or how those amounts were credited against the loan or judgment and if Bank of America does have HOA information, it will be interesting to know how it was obtained.\n\nIt is now well documented that during this period, major banks, including through their relationship with XXXX XXXX, colluded with homeowners associations to drive foreclosures and extract payments from distressed homeowners. \nBank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises serious questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the improper benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process.\n\nA bare assertion that all payments were applied correctly without producing the underlying HOA ledgers, sale proceeds distribution records, or any explanation of how the government audit findings were considered does not constitute a reasonable investigation under Regulation X and the sole mentioned of it, means that an audit is merited. Error 2 Property Preservation Damage and Insurance Proceeds Bank of America state that property preservation activities were conducted in accordance with standard servicing practices and that Bank of America have no record of any insurance claims or proceeds. This response is inadequate. Your own preservation contractors caused damage to the property. One of your agents changed the locks and installed a lock-box without authorization, after which appliances and personal property were removed. The XXXX XXXX Police Department documented this incident. Your claim that you have no record of insurance claims does not address the damage caused by your own agents while the property remained legally mine. You have also failed to identify the systems searched or provide any preservation vendor records, invoices, or communications.\n\nError 3 Foreclosure Sale Based on Depressed Valuation You claim the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with applicable law and that the valuation was based on the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. You do not address the XX/XX/XXXX court order that specifically noted PROPERTY DAMAGE and directed Bank of America to repair the property within thirty days. You also ignore contemporaneous appraisals showing the damaged property was valued at approximately {$100000.00} less than half the judgment amount. You can not damage the property, ignore a court repair order, sell it in that condition, and then claim the valuation was accurate. You have provided no valuation analysis, property-condition evidence, or preservation records tied to the valuation.\n\nError 4 DOJ Enforcement Action Review and Exclusion from Settlements Bank of America state that the loan was not identified for review under any DOJ enforcement action or settlement. Bank of America response is not only disingenuous, but it also misleading.\n\nIn addition to the 2012 California-specific robo-signing case ( Case No. XXXX ), there were several major nationwide settlements involving Bank of America and its predecessor, XXXX. \nIn XXXX, the Department of Justice entered into its largest residential fair lending settlement in history against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( then owned by Bank of America ) in the Central District of XXXX. The {$330.00} XXXX settlement addressed systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Plaintiff was excluded from any relief under this settlement despite extensive prior communications with Bank of America. \nIn XXXX, Bank of America, along with other major servicers, entered into the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement resolving widespread foreclosure and servicing abuses, including robo-signing. Bank of America paid the largest share of this settlement. Plaintiff was again excluded from any borrower relief.\n\nBetween XXXX and XXXX, Bank of America paid approximately {$16.00} XXXX to resolve Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities claims. Plaintiff received no compensation or remediation under any of these agreements, despite the clear overlap between the misconduct addressed in those settlements and the facts of her foreclosure, property damage, confirmation defects, and post-sale accounting issues.\n\nBank of America statement that the loan was not identified for review does not change the fact that Plaintiff was systematically excluded from relief programs designed to address the very categories of harm she suffered.\n\nIncomplete Foreclosure Accounting and Record Destruction Bank of America state that records concerning the distribution of foreclosure proceeds and the VA net-value acquisition calculation are no longer retained in your archival system. You provide only a partial Loan History Statement. You have not demonstrated that you conducted a reasonable search of all servicer files, foreclosure files, legal files, guaranty-claim files, or vendor files. Simply claiming records are purged or may be with the VA does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X or in active litigation. Bank of America have also failed to provide document retention policy, purge dates, or an affidavit from a records custodian.\n\nCredit Reporting Response You state that the loan is no longer being reported to consumer reporting agencies and that prior reporting was accurate when made. This is insufficient. You have not identified what was actually reported, when it was reported, to which agencies, or what documents you reviewed to conclude the reporting was accurate and how negatively impacted and impacts my credit- despite that U. S. Federal agencies found these errors. A conclusory statement does not constitute a reasonable investigation.\n\nDemand for Supplemental Response Bank of America must supplement its response within ten ( 10 ) business days and provide the following : All documents reviewed or relied upon for each no error determination.\n\nThe complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of proceeds and any VA net-value calculations.\n\nAll property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications.\n\nAll HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale proceeds and how they were credited.\n\nAll insurance claim and proceeds records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this loan.\n\nA request-by-request explanation, tied to a specific Regulation X exception, for every document withheld as over-broad, burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or outside your possession.\n\nFailure to provide a complete and compliant supplemental response will be treated as continued noncompliance with Regulation X and as evidence of bad faith.\n\nNothing in this letter waives any rights, claims, objections, remedies, or damages. All prior reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Notice of Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations to XXXX XXXX XXXX This addemdum is directed to you in your capacity as counsel for Bank of America , N.A . in connection with the above-referenced loan and property. You are hereby placed on formal notice of your fiduciary duties and ethical obligations as an officer of the court. It appears that AI drafted a letter with matters that do not pertain to Bank of America.\n\nAs an attorney representing a client in matters involving federal statutes, ongoing litigation, and regulatory compliance, you owe duties that extend beyond mere advocacy for your client. These include : Duty of Candor to the Tribunal Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, and the corresponding rules adopted by the jurisdictions in which you practice, you have an affirmative duty to be candid with courts and to correct false or misleading statements made to any tribunal.\n\nThis duty continues even after a representation has concluded if you later learn that false evidence or statements were presented.\n\nDuty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you assist a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X.\n\nDuty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When responding to a borrowers Notice of Error or Request for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, counsel has an obligation to ensure that the servicer has conducted a reasonable search and that the response is accurate and complete. A response that relies on conclusory statements while withholding material records does not satisfy this duty. \n\nDuty as an XXXX of the XXXX You are not merely a private advocate. You are an XXXX of the legal system with a special responsibility for the quality of justice. This includes the obligation to refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial or administrative processes, including the concealment of material information or the making of representations that are inconsistent with known facts in the record. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations. These include contradictory positions regarding the applicability of Regulation X, conclusory no error findings unsupported by identified records, failure to produce critical accounting and distribution documents from the foreclosure sale, and incomplete or evasive responses regarding property preservation, HOA payments, and credit reporting.\n\nYou are further advised that continued reliance on prior responses, blanket assertions that records have been purged, or deflection of responsibility to other entities ( such as the VA ) without a demonstrated reasonable search of all relevant files may constitute a violation of your ethical duties, particularly in light of the government audit findings and the documented internal concerns regarding the foreclosure and title issues.\n\nThis letter serves as formal notice that any further deficient or misleading responses may be used as evidence of bad faith and may be brought to the attention of the appropriate courts, regulatory bodies, and disciplinary authorities.\n\nNothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to me. All prior objections, demands, and reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nI expect a complete and compliant supplemental response within the timeframe previously demanded. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Issue in XXXX Letter, Why Its an Error, Regulation/ Legal Problem 1 ) Contradictory position on Regulation X, '' They claim the response is under 1024.35 & 1024.36, but then say your XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX letter ( forwarded by XXXX ) was not a proper RESPA request because it wasnt sent to the designated address. '' You can not invoke the protections of Regulation X while simultaneously disclaiming its obligations. This is a classic bad-faith tactic.\n\n2 ) Conclusory no error findings, '' They repeatedly say no errors were identified without describing what investigation was done, which systems were searched, or which documents were reviewed. \", Regulation X requires a reasonable investigation. A bare conclusion is insufficient ( see XXXX XXXX Bank of America ). \n\n3 ) Failure to identify relied-upon documents, They never clearly list what records they actually reviewed for each no error determination., Required under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) and 1024.36 ( d ).\n\n4 ) Global / blanket objections, '' They make a broad statement that some requests are overbroad, burdensome, or not in their possession without tying each objection to specific requests. \", Regulation X requires them to respond to the reasonably identifiable portion and explain each withholding specifically.\n\n5 ) Incomplete foreclosure accounting, '' They only gave a partial Loan History Statement and claimed records of foreclosure proceeds distribution and VA net-value calculation are no longer retained. They did not prove they searched all relevant files ( servicing, legal, foreclosure, vendor ). \", This is not a reasonable search. They also failed to provide retention policy or custodian affidavit.\n\n6 ) VA record deflection, They say VA net-value records may have been maintained by the VA without showing they searched their own guaranty-claim files or vendor files., XXXX ( as servicer ) had obligations to maintain and produce these records.\n\n7 ) Weak valuation response ( Error 3 ), '' They claim the sale was proper and valuation was accurate, but completely ignore the XX/XX/XXXX court order ( PROPERTY DAMAGE ) and the XX/XX/XXXX appraisals showing ~ $ XXXX value. \", They must address the specific evidence you raised.\n\n8 ) Misleading settlement response ( Error 4 ), They say the loan was not identified for any settlement. This is misleading because you were excluded from the XXXX XXXX Fair Lending Settlement and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement despite the nature of your claims., They are downplaying the pattern of exclusion.\n\n9 ) Credit reporting response is conclusory, '' They say the loan is no longer reported and prior reporting was accurate when made without identifying what was reported, when, or to which bureaus. \", This does not constitute a proper investigation or correction under FCRA or RESPA.\n\n10 ) Record destruction without justification, \" They admit BPOs and old escrow statements were purged but provide no retention policy, purge dates, or proof of reasonable search before destruction ( especially after litigation was foreseeable ). \", This can support spoliation arguments.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-27T00:09:47.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"21209","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22596398","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-26T23:46:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of <em>proceeds</em> and any VA net-value calculations.\n\nAll property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications.\n\nAll HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale <em>proceeds</em> and how they were credited.\n\nAll insurance claim and <em>proceeds</em> records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this <em>loan</em>."]},"sort":[11.398081,"22596398"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3860776","_score":11.281196,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"We closed on our home refinance back on Sunday, XX/XX/2020 ( XXXX closing ). However, on Monday XX/XX/2020, almost a month after our closing, we received a letter on the mail from our lender requesting we sign an enclosed backdated note which contained different clauses from the original eNote we signed back on XX/XX/2020, but with the same terms. Upon receiving the letter with the enclosed second note, we contacted our lender to inquire as to the reason for this. During our conversations we were told that they ( lender ) did not receive the note from the title company/settlement agent. We proceeded to contact the title company to request their assistance. On Thursday XX/XX/2020 the lender sent an email indicating that they had found the eNote and that the issue had been resolved. This information was confirmed on the MERS registry, where lender is listed as the Note holder ( both the Servicer and the Investor ). \n\nSadly, late afternoon, on Friday XX/XX/2020, the lender sends an email stating the eNote is no longer acceptable. The lender, once again, proceeds to request for me to sign a second original note that is backdated, containing different clauses ( yet the same agreed upon terms ). I respond to this email requesting information as to the reason for the request. The only response I obtain is an email stating : \" the eNote is not acceptable because it is not vaulted in our system '' ( which seems to contradict what the MERS registry states ). Attached to that email, the lender adds a copy of the Compliance Agreement, and again, requests for me to sign the second note and return. \n\nI immediately called the title/settlement agent for assistance and information. Some time after I had spoken to the agent, I received a call from the lender. The person on the phone proceeded to explain that as per the signed Compliance Agreement, lender has the right to request any document and/or any signature from me for the following two years. No useful information was provided during this conversation. At the end of the phone call, lender stated that someone else, who understood the issue, would contact me. I received an email later that afternoon from another lender 's representative stating that if I had any additional questions to please reach out to this representative directly. \n\nI am using my best effort in understanding what the issue is so that I may assist in a way that is satisfactory to both lender and I. However, I have been unable to obtain a clear answer about what the supposed issue seems to be. \n\nI have been advised to not sign a second \" original '' promissory note, since this could be constructed as a legal obligation for a second repayment of the total loan amount. Even the note itself instructs to \" [ Sign Original Only ] ''. \n\nIf this were any other document in the loan package, I would not be thinking twice about complying with the lender 's request. However, due to the serious and binding nature of the specific document being requested for me to sign a second time ( a transferable security instrument ), I find it reasonable for me to obtain clear information as to the reason for this. In my limited experience, this situation seems pretty irregular, and I am very uncomfortable knowing the risk and possible negative future consequences this could bring if I were to sign the second note.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-09-22T04:46:32.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"80516","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3860776","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2020-09-22T04:00:52.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The lender, once again, <em>proceeds</em> to request for me to sign a second original note that is backdated, containing different clauses ( yet the same agreed upon terms ). I respond to this email requesting information as to the reason for the request. The only response I obtain is an email stating : \" the eNote is not acceptable because it is not vaulted in our system '' ( <em>which</em> seems to contradict what the MERS registry <em>states</em> )."]},"sort":[11.281196,"3860776"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1857373","_score":11.143291,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am seeking a valid response from Goldman Sachs. The dates provided in the response are flawed, as I did not purchase the home until XXXX. So, it was impossible to purchase the mortgage loan from XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( the Note was Not held for One Year ). Goldman Sachs states, \" According to the records ... .. '' -- What records? GS Mortgage Securities Corp is / was a related entity to Goldman Sachs. When did a Goldman Sachs controlled company sell the mortgage loan, and to whom? I would like a time-stamped and recorded document that would reflect compliance within XXXX, SEC and laws for the State of New York that pertain to the sales transaction from a securitized trust. Again, I am seeking regulatory help in this election year from XXXX XXXX, Director ; CFPB, FDIC, OTS, OCC, FTC and other previously mentioned government agencies -- as this level of fraud is unprecedented. \n\nCase number : XXXX Company responded Goldman Sachs Bank USA said : Explanation of closure In response to your request, based on a review of our firm 's records, please be informed that our firm has no ownership or any involvement with the operations of your loan. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company purchased your loan from XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and GS Mortgage Securities Corp., acquired the loan from Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and deposited it into a trust entitled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Trust ), on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. According to the records, XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) is the trustee for the Trust, and the current owner of your loan. The Trust is a separate entity, XXXX XXXX Sachs maintains no involvement in the operations of the Trust, including maintenance of original documents associated with your mortgage loan. Please contact XXXX as Servicer, or the Trustee, XXXX, if you have questions regarding your mortgage loan payments or require additional information about the Trust. \n\nDescribe what happened so we can understand the issue ... \nGoldman Sachs purchased my mortgage note from XXXX XXXX in XXXX. A securitized transaction that included my home loan was completed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \nThe transaction names XXXX as the Trustee for Goldman Sachs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThe transaction is deemed invalid, as the mortgage note was not transferred or recorded into the Trust within the 90-day closing period that is required by New York law and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. \nFor the past few years, Goldman Sachs has relied upon XXXX and XXXX to fabricate fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage documents in an effort to gain a legal standing to execute a foreclosure sale against my home. \nThese types of action have led to the recent approval of a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs for {$5.00} XXXX Dollars ; which, I am seeking inclusion in the suit for wrongful foreclosure, unfair business practices and excessive emotional grief. \nWithout recording the mortgage note into the Trust within the required 90-day time frame, Goldman Sachs, its Trustee or other representatives have no standing to foreclose on my home. \nI am a U.S. veteran who should not be subjected to shady financial transactions that were orchestrated by banks / investors who assisted in the toppling of our country 's financial system. \nConsent to publish the description of what happened? Consent provided I want Goldman Sachs to cancel my foreclosure sale, so that regulators from the OTS, OCC, FTC, CFPB, FDIC, HUD and other government agencies have an opportunity to review the facts of my case. \n\nI want to receive proceeds from the {$5.00} XXXX lawsuit that Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay homeowners who have been vilified as a result of its business practices and engagement in unethical dealing with mortgage banks, such as XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\nI","date_sent_to_company":"2016-03-31T10:31:37.000Z","issue":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","sub_product":"Conventional fixed mortgage","zip_code":"173XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1857373","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2016-03-31T00:40:51.000Z","state":"PA","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":["So, it was impossible to purchase the mortgage <em>loan</em> from XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( the Note was Not held for One Year ). Goldman Sachs <em>states</em>, \" According to the records ... .. '' -- What records? GS Mortgage Securities Corp is / was a related entity to Goldman Sachs. When did a Goldman Sachs controlled company sell the mortgage <em>loan</em>, and to whom?"],"issue":["<em>Loan</em> servicing, payments, escrow account"]},"sort":[11.143291,"1857373"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2922909","_score":10.3127,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, I applied in XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX for a home mortgage. I currently had a home equity loan with a variable rate and was looking to get a fixed rate product because interest rates were rising. I opened the Home Equity Loan with XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. At that time my mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing was paid in full from the proceeds of the Home Equity loan. In the process of doing the current refinance, XXXX XXXX 's attorney contacted me that there was an open lien on my property. The attorney stated that the satisfaction of mortgage done by Ocwen in XX/XX/XXXX was incorrect and had to be re-done. The attorney sent the title company info he had to Ocwen to assist them in doing the corrected satisfaction. This began before the XX/XX/XXXX. The attorney would periodically contact me that he did not receive the satisfaction from Ocwen. I was contacting Ocwen numerous times each week asking them why the satisfaction was taking so long. All they would say was that it was being researched. My loan processor at XXXX informed me during this time that I needed to extend my commitment to save the rate I had locked in if the loan didn't close by XX/XX/XXXX. The rate expired on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX  stated there would be a fee charged of {$470.00} which I paid at my closing to save the lower rate. Because of the delay in waiting for the satisfaction my loan didn't close until XX/XX/XXXX. The first satisfaction they sent to XXXX XXXX was incorrect and there was an additional delay for them to do a corrected one.  Both are attached. Ocwen dated the 2nd satisfaction XX/XX/XXXX so it would appear they were in compliance with the timelines for RESPA. The XXXX  attorney did not receive the satisfaction until Friday, XX/XX/XXXX. In addition to that, because of Ocwen 's delay in doing the corrected satisfaction, the title company for XXXX XXXX required that I deposit {$5000.00} in escrow until the recorded satisfaction of mortgage was received back from the XXXX County Clerk. The attorney also advised them that they needed to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage which they never did initially. The XXXX  title attorney 's communications with Ocwen began on XX/XX/XXXX. The first reply I received was the attached letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that they are in the process of preparing the discharge/satisfaction. It took 2 weeks just for them to send an acknowledgement letter. As a result of their incompetence, I am out {$470.00} for the extension fee as well as the use of my {$5000.00}. The escrow holdback and fee paid is shown on the attached closing statement. I had an attorney send a letter to them dated XX/XX/XXXX ( copy enclosed ). Their reply to that was that she was not an authorized party so they would not reply to her. I sent a letter to Ocwen on XX/XX/XXXX ( copy attached ) giving them authority to reply to the attorney and requesting reimbursement for the above. I have sent 2 letters to Ocwen about this and their reply letters do not address the issue. They keep referring to the time line of the County Clerk in recording the satisfaction document. They do not acknowledge their delay in producing the corrected satisfaction or their error in doing the satisfaction incorrectly in XX/XX/XXXX. Attached is the mortgage schedule from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX noting the defective satisfaction recorded in XX/XX/XXXX. I have requested that they refund me the extension fee of {$470.00}, the reimbursement for the loss of use of my {$5000.00} that had to be held pending recording of the satisfaction ( approx. 16 days ). Ocwen has not complied with Section 1921 of the Real Estate Actions and Proceedings Law. This states that failure by a mortgagee to present a certificate of discharge for recording shall result in the mortgagee being liable to the mortgagor in the amount of XXXX XXXX Dollars if he or she fails to present such certificate within 30 days, shall result in the mortgagee being liable to the mortgagor in the amount of XXXX XXXX dollars if he fails to present a certificate of discharge within 60 days or shall result in the mortgagee being liable to the mortgagor in the amount of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXd dollars if he fails to present a certificate of discharge for recording within 90 days. \nI hope you can assist me in recovering these funds from Ocwen. Ocwen is a substandard servicer and I am sure there are numerous complaints from other consumers. It is unfair to me as a consumer to have to pay additional fees as a result of the delays and incompetence of Ocwen Loan Servicing. Thank you for your help.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-06-06T15:42:16.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"10308","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2922909","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-05-31T15:20:54.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I currently had a home equity <em>loan</em> with a variable rate and was looking to get a fixed rate product because interest rates were rising. I opened the Home Equity <em>Loan</em> with XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. At that time my mortgage servicer, Ocwen <em>Loan</em> Servicing was paid in full from the <em>proceeds</em> of the Home Equity <em>loan</em>. In the process of doing the current refinance, XXXX XXXX 's attorney contacted me that there was an open lien on my property."]},"sort":[10.3127,"2922909"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8389457","_score":10.216614,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding a dispute I have with Capital One Auto Finance and its handling of my auto account. My issue pertains to both the illegibility of documents provided and the inconsistency of payment history data reported by Capital One XXXX when compared to the information listed on my credit reports. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response from Capital One XXXX, which was dated XX/XX/XXXX. In this response, the XXXX pages that consisted the majority of information printed so small it is impossible to read, rendering the pages incomprehensible. This appears to be, at best, an oversight, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to stall addressing their inconsistencies. \n\nFurthermore, the latter XXXX pages included a spreadsheet that purported to outline my payment history. However, this record is at odds with the payment history reflected on my credit reports from the XXXX major credit bureaus. This discrepancy is extremely concerning, as it has the potential to impact my credit negatively. \n\nPursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), codified at 15 U.S.C. 1681, I am invoking the following provisions : 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681a : Definitions, particularly ( d ) which defines consumer information that should be accurately reported.\n\n2. 15 U.S.C. 1681b : Permissible purposes of consumer reports, which may be applicable if Capital One Auto misuses my credit information.\n\n3. 15 U.S.C. 1681c : Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports ensuring accurate information is reported.\n\n4. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Compliance procedures requiring that reasonable procedures are in place to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual.\n\n5. 15 U.S.C. 1681g : Disclosures to consumers which details the obligation for clear and proper disclosures to consumers.\n\n6. 15 U.S.C. 1681i : Procedure in case of disputed accuracy this is particularly important as Capital One Auto has failed to correct the inaccuracies reported.\n\n7. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies, requiring Capital One to provide accurate data.\n\nGiven these statutes, I request an investigation into the practices of Capital One Auto Finance to determine if there have been any violations of the aforementioned sections of the FCRA. Additionally, I assert that Capital One Auto Finances conduct may potentially violate the Consumer Protection Act with deceptive communication.\n\nIn view of these serious concerns, I seek immediate rectification including, but not limited to : - A detailed explanation for the illegible documentation provided to me.\n\n- An investigation into the inconsistencies in the reported payment history between Capital One Auto and the three major credit bureaus.\n\n- Adjustments in my credit report to accurately reflect my true payment history, and removal of any inaccuracies if found.\n\n- Proper reissue of account statements and payment history in a legible and comprehensible format.\n\nIf the necessary corrections are not made in a timely manner, I am prepared to take further legal action as afforded to me under the law.\n\nPlease consider this letter as a formal complaint to be added to their record with the CFPB. Enclosed with this letter are copies of the aforementioned illegible documents and the spreadsheet provided by Capital One Auto, along with a copy of my credit reports for your reference.\n\nIn addition to the grievances previously mentioned, I must emphasize a particularly distressing issue relating to the repossession and subsequent auction of my vehicle. Despite the vehicle being repossessed and sold at auction by Capital One Auto Finance, I am still being held accountable for the full value of the original loan. This is deeply concerning and appears to contravene the ethical obligations and regulatory requirements expected of lenders.\n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), which has been adopted in some form by most states, there are guidelines pertaining to secured transactions, including the repossession and resale of collateral. Specifically, UCC 9-610 requires that the disposition of collateral be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner. Further, UCC 9-615 outlines the debtor 's rights to a surplus or liability for a deficiency in these circumstances. If the vehicle has not been sold in a commercially reasonable manner or if the deficiency after the sale is being incorrectly calculated, this could constitute a violation of the UCC and potentially state-specific consumer protection laws.\n\nMoreover, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) prohibits debt collectors from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Holding me responsible for the full value of a loan after the collateral has been sold at auction could qualify as such, depending on the surplus or deficiency resulting from that sale.\n\nIt is also worth questioning whether Capital One Auto Finance has correctly applied the proceeds of the auction sale to my loan balance, as is required by law, before asserting any deficiency for which I am allegedly responsible. Such practices call into question Capital One Auto Finance 's adherence to these laws and fundamentally challenge the ethical integrity of their proceedings following the repossession and sale of my vehicle.\n\nTaking all of these factors into consideration, I insist upon a detailed explanation and accounting of how the proceeds of the auction were applied to my loan balance, and why there would be any remaining balance, if at all. Capital One Auto Finance must demonstrate compliance with the UCC, FDCPA, and any other relevant consumer protection statutes, failing which they would be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny.\n\nTherefore, I request an immediate review and rectification of the outstanding loan balance in the context of the auction sale of the repossessed vehicle. I expect Capital One Auto Finance to uphold their legal responsibilities by ensuring all actions and calculations post-repossession have been performed ethically and in accordance with the law.\n\nGiven the substantial inaccuracies and discrepancies associated with my Capital One Auto account including but not limited to the presentation of illegible documentation, inconsistencies in the reported payment history, and questionable calculations of the remaining balance following the repossession and auction of the vehicle I assert that the charge related to this account is incorrect and undeserved.\n\nUnder the auspices of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am protected by a number of provisions which dictate the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies : - 15 U.S.C. 1681i requires that credit reporting agencies conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed information upon notification of a dispute from the consumer, rectify errors, and remove or correct any inaccurate information.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) compels credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( g ) defines the responsibilities of furnishers, like Capital One Auto, requiring them to provide accurate and updated information to credit reporting agencies. \n\nConsidering the obligations mandated by these statutes and the discrepancies linked to my account, it stands to reason that any charge reflecting the disputed account as it currently appears should be stricken from my credit reports. To allow inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information to remain would allow continued harm to my credit reputation and financial stability, contrary to the protections intended by the FCRA. \n\nFurthermore, case law supports consumers in similar situations where courts have found in favor of plaintiffs who have experienced similar reporting inaccuracies. In the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), a consumer sued a credit reporting agency for inaccurate reporting. The court ruled in favour of the consumer, finding that credit reporting agencies have a duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. \n\nTherefore, in light of the clear violation of the aforementioned Federal laws and supporting case law, I urge the immediate investigation and action to remove the erroneous charge from my credit reports to prevent further damage to my credit standing. This rectification is not only warranted but imperative to ensure compliance with Federal law and the protection of my legal rights as a consumer.\n\nI appreciate the CFPB 's attention to this matter and await prompt resolution, ensuring my credit reports accurately reflect only verifiable, accurate, and fair information as intended by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-22T05:14:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"80206","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8389457","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-02-22T04:46:11.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Taking all of these factors into consideration, I insist upon a detailed explanation and accounting of how the <em>proceeds</em> of the auction were applied to my <em>loan</em> balance, and why there would be any remaining balance, if at all. Capital One Auto Finance must demonstrate <em>compliance</em> with the UCC, FDCPA, and any other relevant consumer protection statutes, failing <em>which</em> they would be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny."]},"sort":[10.216614,"8389457"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8389316","_score":10.190753,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding a dispute I have with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its handling of my auto account. My issue pertains to both the illegibility of documents provided and the inconsistency of payment history data reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX when compared to the information listed on my credit reports. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response from XXXX XXXX XXXX, which was dated XX/XX/XXXX. In this response, the two pages that consisted the majority of information printed so small it is impossible to read, rendering the pages incomprehensible. This appears to be, at best, an oversight, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to stall addressing their inconsistencies.\n\nFurthermore, the latter two pages included a spreadsheet that purported to outline my payment history. However, this record is at odds with the payment history reflected on my credit reports from the three major credit bureaus. This discrepancy is extremely concerning, as it has the potential to impact my credit negatively.\nPursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), codified at 15 U.S.C. 1681, I am invoking the following provisions : 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681a : Definitions, particularly ( d ) which defines consumer information that should be accurately reported.\n\n2. 15 U.S.C. 1681b : Permissible purposes of consumer reports, which may be applicable if XXXX XXXX XXXX misuses my credit information.\n\n3. 15 U.S.C. 1681c : Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports ensuring accurate information is reported.\n\n4. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Compliance procedures requiring that reasonable procedures are in place to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual.\n\n5. 15 U.S.C. 1681g : Disclosures to consumers which details the obligation for clear and proper disclosures to consumers.\n\n6. 15 U.S.C. 1681i : Procedure in case of disputed accuracy this is particularly important as Capital One Auto has failed to correct the inaccuracies reported.\n\n7. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies, requiring XXXX XXXX to provide accurate data. \n\nGiven these statutes, I request an investigation into the practices of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to determine if there have been any violations of the aforementioned sections of the FCRA. Additionally, I assert that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct may potentially violate the Consumer Protection Act with deceptive communication. \n\n\n\nIn view of these serious concerns, I seek immediate rectification including, but not limited to : - A detailed explanation for the illegible documentation provided to me. \n- An investigation into the inconsistencies in the reported payment history between XXXX XXXX Auto and the three major credit bureaus. \n- Adjustments in my credit report to accurately reflect my true payment history, and removal of any inaccuracies if found. \n- Proper reissue of account statements and payment history in a legible and comprehensible format. \n\nIf the necessary corrections are not made in a timely manner, I am prepared to take further legal action as afforded to me under the law. \n\nPlease consider this letter as a formal complaint to be added to their record with the CFPB. Enclosed with this letter are copies of the aforementioned illegible documents and the spreadsheet provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX, along with a copy of my credit reports for your reference. \n\nIn addition to the grievances previously mentioned, I must emphasize a particularly distressing issue relating to the repossession and subsequent auction of my vehicle. Despite the vehicle being repossessed and sold at auction by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am still being held accountable for the full value of the original loan. This is deeply concerning and appears to contravene the ethical obligations and regulatory requirements expected of lenders. \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), which has been adopted in some form by most states, there are guidelines pertaining to secured transactions, including the repossession and resale of collateral. Specifically, UCC 9-610 requires that the disposition of collateral be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner. Further, UCC 9-615 outlines the debtor 's rights to a surplus or liability for a deficiency in these circumstances. If the vehicle has not been sold in a commercially reasonable manner or if the deficiency after the sale is being incorrectly calculated, this could constitute a violation of the UCC and potentially state-specific consumer protection laws. \n\nMoreover, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) prohibits debt XXXX from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Holding me responsible for the full value of a loan after the collateral has been sold at auction could qualify as such, depending on the surplus or deficiency resulting from that sale. \n\nIt is also worth questioning whether XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has correctly applied the proceeds of the auction sale to my loan balance, as is required by law, before asserting any deficiency for which I am allegedly responsible. Such practices call into question XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's adherence to these laws and fundamentally challenge the ethical integrity of their proceedings following the repossession and sale of my vehicle. \n\nTaking all of these factors into consideration, I insist upon a detailed explanation and accounting of how the proceeds of the auction were applied to my loan balance, and why there would be any remaining balance, if at all. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX must demonstrate compliance with the UCC, FDCPA, and any other relevant consumer protection statutes, failing which they would be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny. \n\nTherefore, I request an immediate review and rectification of the outstanding loan balance in the context of the auction sale of the repossessed vehicle. I expect XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to uphold their legal responsibilities by ensuring all actions and calculations post-repossession have been performed ethically and in accordance with the law. \n\nGiven the substantial inaccuracies and discrepancies associated with my XXXX XXXX XXXX account including but not limited to the presentation of illegible documentation, inconsistencies in the reported payment history, and questionable calculations of the remaining balance following the repossession and auction of the vehicle I assert that the charge related to this account is incorrect and undeserved. \n\nUnder the auspices of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am protected by a number of provisions which dictate the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies : - 15 U.S.C. 1681i requires that credit reporting agencies conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed information upon notification of a dispute from the consumer, rectify errors, and remove or correct any inaccurate information.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) compels credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual.\n\n- 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( g ) defines the responsibilities of furnishers, like XXXX XXXX XXXX, requiring them to provide accurate and updated information to credit reporting agencies. \n\nConsidering the obligations mandated by these statutes and the discrepancies linked to my account, it stands to reason that any charge reflecting the disputed account as it currently appears should be stricken from my credit reports. To allow inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information to remain would allow continued harm to my credit reputation and financial stability, contrary to the protections intended by the FCRA. \n\nFurthermore, case law supports consumers in similar situations where courts have found in favor of plaintiffs who have experienced similar reporting inaccuracies. In the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a consumer sued a credit reporting agency for inaccurate reporting. The court ruled in favour of the consumer, finding that credit reporting agencies have a duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. \n\nTherefore, in light of the clear violation of the aforementioned Federal laws and supporting case law, I urge the immediate investigation and action to remove the erroneous charge from my credit reports to prevent further damage to my credit standing. This rectification is not only warranted but imperative to ensure compliance with Federal law and the protection of my legal rights as a consumer. \n\nI appreciate the CFPB 's attention to this matter and await prompt resolution, ensuring my credit reports accurately reflect only verifiable, accurate, and fair information as intended by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-22T05:14:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"80206","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8389316","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-22T05:14:10.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Taking all of these factors into consideration, I insist upon a detailed explanation and accounting of how the <em>proceeds</em> of the auction were applied to my <em>loan</em> balance, and why there would be any remaining balance, if at all. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX must demonstrate <em>compliance</em> with the UCC, FDCPA, and any other relevant consumer protection statutes, failing <em>which</em> they would be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny."]},"sort":[10.190753,"8389316"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3989813","_score":10.170654,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my complaint against First American Title, part of First American Financial ( FAF ) XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX who defraud home buyers with bogus Title insurances which XXXX XXXX  ( a sham conduit for FAF and XXXX XXXX , owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who owns several Title Companies, like XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FAF and XXXX help XXXX XXXX Banks to operate a giant Ponzi  Scheme with derivatives and massively defraud home buyers about the REAL nature of their transaction - secretive participation in fictitious securitization scheme without borrowers knowledge or consent, where XXXX XXXX Banks sell borrowers ' IDENTITIES on the open markets for about 12-184 profits - while pocket ALL so-called \" mortgage payments '' and escrow money as their tax free revenue. \n\nXXXX XXXX never inform home buyers about WHO will actually their \" Title insurance '' company - because both FAF and XXXX know that Big Banks break every property Title in their fraudulent scheme - and of course are not going to compensate defrauded borrowers. \n\nXXXX XXXX Bankers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX - created a perfect scheme where it simply is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \n\nBig Banks want to maintain this illusion as long as they can - and here why they need services of FAF and XXXX - whose subsidiaries XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX prepare fictious \" assignments '' about non-existing \" sales '' in fraudulent foreclosures presented by lawyers who do not even know who hired them - XXXX and XXXX. \n\nOn an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. But they don't know how because most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nBut XXXX and FAF know exactly that really happened when most homeowners thought that they were closing a loan transaction. And they know that property TITLE will be broken and clouded. This is why XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  or XXXX XXXX refuse to fulfill their obligation under the Policy they deceptively sold me. Because XXXX and XXXX XXXX are the part of the XXXX XXXX banks mob. \n\nThis is why XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX falsely claim that my \" mortgage with XXXX XXXX  is excluded from coverage. But I never had ANY mortgages with XXXX - ever. \n\nMy transaction on XX/XX/XXXX was not a loan, and XXXX XXXX was not a Lender. \n\nMy transaction was a payment to me by XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was the actual originator who passed me money for MY services to XXXX XXXX Investment Banks ; and who collects my repayment of my only compensation via XXXX agreement with XXXX/XXXX. \n\nNeither XXXX, XXXX or XXXX never touched a cent from these money. They tell they do but it is a lie. All money are going straight to Big Banks as tax-free revenue for my involuntary servitude in their XXXX  Scheme. \n\nEvery investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a FICTIONAL entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBy disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities INDEFINITELY without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors XXXX, which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information. In other words, a LIE. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner - which negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner masqueraded as a \" loan '' The initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed XXXX, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX there was no bigger market in which they could participate. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nThis is why neither XXXX or XXXX or XXXX can not respond to a simple question who is the owner of my \" obligation '' ( if exists ) and who and when sold my \" loan '' to XXXX. They answer evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \nAlthough there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \n\nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts. Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \n\nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \n\nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n\nThe actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n* Since there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$30.00} XXXX. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around XXXX times the amount of currency. \nAnd this XXXX  SCGEME would not succeed if XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX along with other fictitious \" sellers \" of bogus \" Title Insurances '' would not create an APPEARANCE of illusion called \" mortgage '' and \" homeownership '' It is proven by many cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors. \n\nThe outcome of all such cases is a finding by the court that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. \n\nAnd EVERY Propectus specifically states that mortgages WILL BE pooled in some Trusts which WILL BE created - while none of it happened in the real life. \n\nThe alleged servicers know that they have no authority and in fact do not perform any collections, administration or enforcement of anyone 's debt. \n\nSince here is NO loan account, it can not be guaranteed by any XXXX  ; there can be no default and hence no remedy is there is either no obligation or no ownership of the obligation by the complaining party. \n\nThis is why XXXX, XXXX and XXXX failed and refused to answer basic questions about the establishment, existence, and ownership of the alleged underlying obligation. \n\nI have clear evidence that my transaction was not a \" loan '' and not with XXXX Mortgage but with undisclosed investment bank who hired FAF and XXXX subsidiarties to damage my property Title. \n\nThus, First American Title and XXXX XXXX XXXX compensate me for damages, at least {$130000.00} under the policy. \n\nPlus damages for extreme emotional distress, and aiding and abetting Investment Banks fraud and racket.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-03T11:49:32.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3989813","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-12-03T11:01:04.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["And EVERY Propectus specifically <em>states</em> that mortgages WILL BE pooled in some Trusts <em>which</em> WILL BE created - while none of it happened in the real life. \n\nThe alleged servicers know that they have no authority and in fact do not perform any collections, administration or enforcement of anyone 's debt."]},"sort":[10.170654,"3989813"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003729","_score":10.140776,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer XXXX XXXX whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka XX/XX/XXXX) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that Wall Street Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had zero in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world. \nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the Wall Street banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was ( a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b ) to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years.\n\nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nWall Street Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than 2o days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy Wall Street bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-05T13:22:44.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:39:23.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for <em>which</em> they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in <em>which</em> the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire <em>proceeds</em> of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending."],"company":["Specialized <em>Loan</em> Servicing Holdings LLC"]},"sort":[10.140776,"4003729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003724","_score":10.117991,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer Wells Fargo whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and Wells Fargoto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX Trust XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka SLAVERY ) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that XXXX XXXX  Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had XXXX in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world.\n\nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the XXXX XXXX banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was XXXX a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b XXXX to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years. \nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nXXXX XXXX Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was zero. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the XXXX, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than XXXX days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy XXXX XXXX bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-22T11:38:01.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003724","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:30:36.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for <em>which</em> they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in <em>which</em> the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire <em>proceeds</em> of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending."]},"sort":[10.117991,"4003724"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7088835","_score":9.114439,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ALL of the CRAs and it my understanding that the CFPB will be forwarding ALL this inaccurate information which the CRAs continue to place onto my credit report. \n\nI have tried to resolve this matter several times but to no avail. The CRAs and Creditor continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. CRAs and Creditors are using my nonpublic information without my consent. I have not given you permission to access my Consumer Report and nobody have no permissible purpose by law to contact third parties with my private or personal information. Your offenses amount to Aggravated Identity Theft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1028A. You have knowingly transferred, possessed, or used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of me, which is a felony punishable with up to 2 years of imprisonment.\n\nAccording to 15 USC 1681a - FCRA Congress has made it very clear that there are some things that should not be reporting on my Consumer Report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a Definitions ; rules of construction ( d ) Consumer Report ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; *The transactions are between me and the company. The person making the report is the company. Because they are defined as the person as the corporation. Right? But where does the transaction go? When you go to apply for a loan, thats a transaction. If the company is reporting me 30 days late, isnt that a transaction? Isnt that an experience? If theres a charge off on my report isnt that an experience. If a have a collection account on my consumer report isnt that an experience or transaction? The answer is YES!!!! \nCreditors failed to disclose vital information from me, and this is a violation. Per 16 CFR 433.2 Preservation of consumers claim and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\n\nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. \n\nor, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such loan contains the following provision in at least XXXX point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. \n[ 40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975 ; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975 ] The Credit Bureaus did not conduct a proper \" investigation '' according to the FCRA 15 USC 1681 which is a Violation. This was never done!! The CRAs are supposed to notify me of who they interviewed after the investigation is over. Just like the FBI conducts interviews of your neighbors request information concerning me meaning investigative consumer report this is what suppose to be done but never is. \n\n( XXXX ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. \n\n15 U.S. Code 1681- Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. \n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. \n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \n\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 Block of Information resulting from Identity Theft On numerous occasions tried to resolve this issue with CRAs but to no avail. These entities did not have my consent to share my nonpublic information. Per 15 USC 6802 Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information. I was never given Notice from these entities that my nonpublic personal information would be disclose to nonaffiliated third party. Also, these entities did not clearly and conspicuously disclose to me in writing or in electronic form. I was never provided their company policies of the disclose and collection of my nonpublic information.\n\nI have identified these items circled in RED ink as a result of Identity Theft using my nonpublic information without my consent is Identity Theft. \nWhen I have requested these accounts be Blocked and Deleted I received respond from the CRA stating ( A ) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error ; The CRAs cant speak for me and it wasnt in error I have provided the Law of the violation.\n\n( B ) the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or. Where is the evidence or material misrepresentation Provide my with Proof The CRAs are only proving words that not proofing anything and theyre violating my Rights.\n\n( C ) the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. The CRAs doesnt have first-hand knowledge of anything and their making False Claims 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. \n\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \nCRAs are not respecting consumers Right to Privacy and they have GRAVE responsibility and assume a Vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. I have lost confidence in the system because the system isnt working for me. The CRAs and Creditors are constantly violating my rights to Privacy. \n\nI never gave Permission 4 Day Block and Remove method No Consent equal Identity Theft I have a Right to Privacy the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) requires financial institutions to safeguard the confidentiality of customer information. Under the GLBA, financial institutions must deliver notices to customers regarding the collection and information sharing policies; providing customers with the choice to opt-out if they do not want their information shared with nonaffiliated third parties. 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ), ( e ) ( 2012 ).\n\nIf any Creditor state, they had my consent please sign have the entity to sign an AFFIDAVIT under the penalty of perjury.\n\nCRA 's continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report when they are supposed to ensure information on my report is 100 % accurate according to FCRA. CRA 's comes back and state account \" VERIFIED '' they are taking the Creditor word instead of conducting their own independent investigation outside of the investigation being completed by the Creditor or Debt Collector. So, the CRA is not supposed to reply on the information being supplied by the furnisher. \n\nMy credit report states the facts of all inaccurate information thats circled in red ink. The CRAs are not in compliance and violating the FCRA. The CRAs are committing ID THEFT by continue to report old addresses which are not my current address where I reside. \n\nI DONT CONSENT TO e-Oscar VERIFICATION! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nREMAINING QUESTIONS OF FACT 1. Whether the creditor complied with the Truth in Truth Lending Act, which is mandatory for enforcement of a credit card agreement 2. Whether the creditor clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumer, in writing or electronic form or other permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804, that such information may be disclosed to third parties 3. Whether the creditor provided in writing to consumer that his/her private, personal nonpublic information would be shared, sold and distributed to nonaffiliates third parties 4. Whether the creditor disclosure their company privacy policies to consumer in writing at the time of establishing a customer relationship.\n\nThese are ALL Violations of Truth in Lending","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-08T13:07:58.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7088835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-06-08T12:51:36.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the <em>proceeds</em> of any purchase money <em>loan</em> ( as purchase money <em>loan</em> is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such <em>loan</em> contains the following provision in at least XXXX point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES <em>WHICH</em> THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE <em>PROCEEDS</em> HEREOF."]},"sort":[9.114439,"7088835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7084339","_score":9.114439,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ALL of the CRAs and it my understanding that the CFPB will be forwarding ALL this inaccurate information which the CRAs continue to place onto my credit report. I have tried to resolve this matter several times but to no avail. The CRAs and Creditor continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. CRAs and Creditors are using my nonpublic information without my consent. I have not given you permission to access my Consumer Report and nobody have no permissible purpose by law to contact third parties with my private or personal information. Your offenses amount to Aggravated Identity Theft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1028A. You have knowingly transferred, possessed, or used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of me, which is a felony punishable with up to 2 years of imprisonment. According to 15 USC 1681a - FCRA Congress has made it very clear that there are some things that should not be reporting on my Consumer Report.\n15 U.S. Code 1681a Definitions ; rules of construction ( d ) Consumer Report ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; *The transactions are between me and the company. The person making the report is the company. Because they are defined as the person as the corporation. Right? But where does the transaction go? When you go to apply for a loan, thats a transaction. If the company is reporting me 30 days late, isnt that a transaction? Isnt that an experience? If theres a charge off on my report isnt that an experience. If a have a collection account on my consumer report isnt that an experience or transaction? The answer is YES!!!! \nCreditors failed to disclose vital information from me, and this is a violation. Per 16 CFR 433.2 Preservation of consumers claim and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices. \nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\nor, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. \n[ 40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975 ; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975 ] The Credit Bureaus did not conduct a proper \" investigation '' according to the FCRA 15 USC 1681 which is a Violation. This was never done!! The CRAs are supposed to notify me of who they interviewed after the investigation is over. Just like the FBI conducts interviews of your neighbors request information concerning me meaning investigative consumer report this is what suppose to be done but never is.\n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681- Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. \n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. \n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 Block of Information resulting from Identity Theft On numerous occasions tried to resolve this issue with CRAs but to no avail. These entities did not have my consent to share my nonpublic information. Per 15 USC 6802 Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information. I was never given Notice from these entities that my nonpublic personal information would be disclose to nonaffiliated third party. Also, these entities did not clearly and conspicuously disclose to me in writing or in electronic form. I was never provided their company policies of the disclose and collection of my nonpublic information.\n\nI have identified these items circled in RED ink as a result of Identity Theft using my nonpublic information without my consent is Identity Theft.\n\nWhen I have requested these accounts be Blocked and Deleted I received respond from the CRA stating ( A ) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error ; The CRAs cant speak for me and it wasnt in error I have provided the Law of the violation.\n\n( B ) the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or. Where is the evidence or material misrepresentation Provide my with Proof The CRAs are only proving words that not proofing anything and theyre violating my Rights.\n\n( C ) the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. The CRAs doesnt have first-hand knowledge of anything and their making False Claims 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nCRAs are not respecting consumers Right to Privacy and they have GRAVE responsibility and assume a Vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. I have lost confidence in the system because the system isnt working for me. The CRAs and Creditors are constantly violating my rights to Privacy.\n\nI never gave Permission 4 Day Block and Remove method No Consent equal Identity Theft I have a Right to Privacy the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) requires financial institutions to safeguard the confidentiality of customer information. Under the GLBA, financial institutions must deliver notices to customers regarding the collection and information sharing policies; providing customers with the choice to opt-out if they do not want their information shared with nonaffiliated third parties. 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ), ( e ) ( 2012 ).\n\nIf any Creditor state, they had my consent please sign have the entity to sign an AFFIDAVIT under the penalty of perjury.\n\nCRA 's continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report when they are supposed to ensure information on my report is 100 % accurate according to FCRA. CRA 's comes back and state account \" VERIFIED '' they are taking the Creditor word instead of conducting their own independent investigation outside of the investigation being completed by the Creditor or Debt Collector. So, the CRA is not supposed to reply on the information being supplied by the furnisher.\n\nMy credit report states the facts of all inaccurate information thats circled in red ink. The CRAs are not in compliance and violating the FCRA. The CRAs are committing ID THEFT by continue to report old addresses which are not my current address where I reside.\n\nI DONT CONSENT TO e-Oscar VERIFICATION!\n\nREMAINING QUESTIONS OF FACT 1. Whether the creditor complied with the Truth in Truth Lending Act, which is mandatory for enforcement of a credit card agreement 2. Whether the creditor clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumer, in writing or electronic form or other permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804, that such information may be disclosed to third parties 3. Whether the creditor provided in writing to consumer that his/her private, personal nonpublic information would be shared, sold and distributed to nonaffiliates third parties 4. Whether the creditor disclosure their company privacy policies to consumer in writing at the time of establishing a customer relationship. \n\n\nThese are ALL Violations of Truth in Lending","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-07T17:32:10.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48185","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7084339","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-06-07T17:14:21.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the <em>proceeds</em> of any purchase money <em>loan</em> ( as purchase money <em>loan</em> is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such <em>loan</em> contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES <em>WHICH</em> THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE <em>PROCEEDS</em> HEREOF."]},"sort":[9.114439,"7084339"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7080750","_score":9.114439,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ALL of the CRAs and it my understanding that the CFPB will be forwarding ALL this inaccurate information which the CRAs continue to place onto my credit report. \n\nI have tried to resolve this matter several times but to no avail. The CRAs and Creditor continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. CRAs and Creditors are using my nonpublic information without my consent. I have not given you permission to access my Consumer Report and nobody have no permissible purpose by law to contact third parties with my private or personal information. Your offenses amount to Aggravated Identity Theft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1028A. You have knowingly transferred, possessed, or used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of me, which is a felony punishable with up to 2 years of imprisonment. \nAccording to 15 USC 1681a - FCRA Congress has made it very clear that there are some things that should not be reporting on my Consumer Report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a Definitions ; rules of construction ( d ) Consumer Report ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; *The transactions are between me and the company. The person making the report is the company. Because they are defined as the person as the corporation. Right? But where does the transaction go? When you go to apply for a loan, thats a transaction. If the company is reporting me 30 days late, isnt that a transaction? Isnt that an experience? If theres a charge off on my report isnt that an experience. If a have a collection account on my consumer report isnt that an experience or transaction? The answer is YES!!!! \nCreditors failed to disclose vital information from me, and this is a violation. Per 16 CFR 433.2 Preservation of consumers claim and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices. \nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\nor, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\n[ 40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975 ; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975 ] The Credit Bureaus did not conduct a proper \" investigation '' according to the FCRA 15 USC 1681 which is a Violation. This was never done!! The CRAs are supposed to notify me of who they interviewed after the investigation is over. Just like the FBI conducts interviews of your neighbors request information concerning me meaning investigative consumer report this is what suppose to be done but never is.\n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681- Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 Block of Information resulting from Identity Theft On numerous occasions tried to resolve this issue with CRAs but to no avail. These entities did not have my consent to share my nonpublic information. Per 15 USC 6802 Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information. I was never given Notice from these entities that my nonpublic personal information would be disclose to nonaffiliated third party. Also, these entities did not clearly and conspicuously disclose to me in writing or in electronic form. I was never provided their company policies of the disclose and collection of my nonpublic information.\n\nI have identified these items circled in RED ink as a result of Identity Theft using my nonpublic information without my consent is Identity Theft.\n\nWhen I have requested these accounts be Blocked and Deleted I received respond from the CRA stating ( A ) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error ; The CRAs cant speak for me and it wasnt in error I have provided the Law of the violation.\n\n( B ) the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or. Where is the evidence or material misrepresentation Provide my with Proof The CRAs are only proving words that not proofing anything and theyre violating my Rights.\n\n( C ) the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. The CRAs doesnt have first-hand knowledge of anything and their making False Claims 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nCRAs are not respecting consumers Right to Privacy and they have GRAVE responsibility and assume a Vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. I have lost confidence in the system because the system isnt working for me. The CRAs and Creditors are constantly violating my rights to Privacy.\n\nI never gave Permission 4 Day Block and Remove method No Consent equal Identity Theft I have a Right to Privacy the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) requires financial institutions to safeguard the confidentiality of customer information. Under the GLBA, financial institutions must deliver notices to customers regarding the collection and information sharing policies; providing customers with the choice to opt-out if they do not want their information shared with nonaffiliated third parties. 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ), ( e ) ( 2012 ).\n\nIf any Creditor state, they had my consent please sign have the entity to sign an AFFIDAVIT under the penalty of perjury.\n\nCRA 's continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report when they are supposed to ensure information on my report is 100 % accurate according to FCRA. CRA 's comes back and state account \" VERIFIED '' they are taking the Creditor word instead of conducting their own independent investigation outside of the investigation being completed by the Creditor or Debt Collector. So, the CRA is not supposed to reply on the information being supplied by the furnisher.\n\nMy credit report states the facts of all inaccurate information thats circled in red ink. The CRAs are not in compliance and violating the FCRA. The CRAs are committing ID THEFT by continue to report old addresses which are not my current address where I reside.\n\nI DONT CONSENT TO e-Oscar VERIFICATION!\n\nREMAINING QUESTIONS OF FACT 1. Whether the creditor complied with the Truth in Truth Lending Act, which is mandatory for enforcement of a credit card agreement 2. Whether the creditor clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumer, in writing or electronic form or other permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804, that such information may be disclosed to third parties 3. Whether the creditor provided in writing to consumer that his/her private, personal nonpublic information would be shared, sold and distributed to nonaffiliates third parties 4. Whether the creditor disclosure their company privacy policies to consumer in writing at the time of establishing a customer relationship.\n\nThese are ALL Violations of Truth in Lending","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-06T15:53:43.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30248","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7080750","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-06-06T15:53:39.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the <em>proceeds</em> of any purchase money <em>loan</em> ( as purchase money <em>loan</em> is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such <em>loan</em> contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES <em>WHICH</em> THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE <em>PROCEEDS</em> HEREOF."]},"sort":[9.114439,"7080750"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7075675","_score":9.114439,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ALL of the CRAs and it my understanding that the CFPB will be forwarding ALL this inaccurate information which the CRAs continue to place onto my credit report.\n\nI have tried to resolve this matter several times but to no avail. The CRAs and Creditor continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. CRAs and Creditors are using my nonpublic information without my consent. I have not given you permission to access my Consumer Report and nobody have no permissible purpose by law to contact third parties with my private or personal information. Your offenses amount to Aggravated Identity Theft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1028A. You have knowingly transferred, possessed, or used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of me, which is a felony punishable with up to 2 years of imprisonment.\n\nAccording to 15 USC 1681a - FCRA Congress has made it very clear that there are some things that should not be reporting on my Consumer Report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a Definitions ; rules of construction ( d ) Consumer Report ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; *The transactions are between me and the company. The person making the report is the company. Because they are defined as the person as the corporation. Right? But where does the transaction go? When you go to apply for a loan, thats a transaction. If the company is reporting me 30 days late, isnt that a transaction? Isnt that an experience? If theres a charge off on my report isnt that an experience. If a have a collection account on my consumer report isnt that an experience or transaction? The answer is YES!!!!\n\nThe Credit Bureaus did not conduct a proper \" investigation '' according to the FCRA 15 USC 1681 which is a Violation. This was never done!! The CRAs are supposed to notify me of who they interviewed after the investigation is over. Just like the FBI conducts interviews of your neighbors request information concerning me meaning investigative consumer report this is what suppose to be done but never is.\n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681- Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\nCreditors failed to disclose vital information from me, and this is a violation. Per 16 CFR 433.2 Preservation of consumers claim and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\n\nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\nor, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\n[ 40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975 ; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975 ] 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 Block of Information resulting from Identity Theft On numerous occasions tried to resolve this issue with CRAs but to no avail. These entities did not have my consent to share my nonpublic information. Per 15 USC 6802 Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information. I was never given Notice from these entities that my nonpublic personal information would be disclose to nonaffiliated third party. Also, these entities did not clearly and conspicuously disclose to me in writing or in electronic form. I was never provided their company policies of the disclose and collection of my nonpublic information.\n\nI have identified these items circled in RED ink as a result of Identity Theft using my nonpublic information without my consent is Identity Theft.\n\nWhen I have requested these accounts be Blocked and Deleted I received respond from the CRA stating ( A ) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error ; The CRAs cant speak for me and it wasnt in error I have provided the Law of the violation.\n\n( B ) the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or. Where is the evidence or material misrepresentation Provide my with Proof The CRAs are only proving words that not proofing anything and theyre violating my Rights.\n\n( C ) the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. The CRAs doesnt have first-hand knowledge of anything and their making False Claims 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nCRAs are not respecting consumers Right to Privacy and they have GRAVE responsibility and assume a Vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. I have lost confidence in the system because the system isnt working for me. The CRAs and Creditors are constantly violating my rights to Privacy.\n\nI never gave Permission 4 Day Block and Remove method No Consent equal Identity Theft I have a Right to Privacy the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) requires financial institutions to safeguard the confidentiality of customer information. Under the GLBA, financial institutions must deliver notices to customers regarding the collection and information sharing policies; providing customers with the choice to opt-out if they do not want their information shared with nonaffiliated third parties. 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ), ( e ) ( 2012 ).\n\nIf any Creditor state, they had my consent please sign have the entity to sign an AFFIDAVIT under the penalty of perjury.\n\nCRA 's continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report when they are supposed to ensure information on my report is 100 % accurate according to FCRA. CRA 's comes back and state account \" VERIFIED '' they are taking the Creditor word instead of conducting their own independent investigation outside of the investigation being completed by the Creditor or Debt Collector. So, the CRA is not supposed to reply on the information being supplied by the furnisher.\n\nMy credit report states the facts of all inaccurate information thats circled in red ink. The CRAs are not in compliance and violating the FCRA. The CRAs are committing ID THEFT by continue to report old addresses which are not my current address where I reside.\n\nI DONT CONSENT TO e-Oscar VERIFICATION!\n\nREMAINING QUESTIONS OF FACT 1. Whether the creditor complied with the Truth in Truth Lending Act, which is mandatory for enforcement of a credit card agreement 2. Whether the creditor clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumer, in writing or electronic form or other permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804, that such information may be disclosed to third parties 3. Whether the creditor provided in writing to consumer that his/her private, personal nonpublic information would be shared, sold and distributed to nonaffiliates third parties 4. Whether the creditor disclosure their company privacy policies to consumer in writing at the time of establishing a customer relationship.\n\nThese are ALL Violations of Truth in Lending","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-06T14:01:14.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30248","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7075675","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-06-06T14:01:07.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the <em>proceeds</em> of any purchase money <em>loan</em> ( as purchase money <em>loan</em> is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such <em>loan</em> contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES <em>WHICH</em> THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE <em>PROCEEDS</em> HEREOF."]},"sort":[9.114439,"7075675"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7105125","_score":9.090975,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"ALL of the CRAs and it my understanding that the CFPB will be forwarding ALL this inaccurate information which the CRAs continue to place onto my credit report. \n\nI have tried to resolve this matter several times but to no avail. The CRAs and Creditor continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. CRAs and Creditors are using my nonpublic information without my consent. I have not given you permission to access my Consumer Report and nobody have no permissible purpose by law to contact third parties with my private or personal information. Your offenses amount to Aggravated Identity Theft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1028A. You have knowingly transferred, possessed, or used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of me, which is a felony punishable with up to 2 years of imprisonment.\n\nAccording to 15 USC 1681a - FCRA Congress has made it very clear that there are some things that should not be reporting on my Consumer Report.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a Definitions ; rules of construction ( d ) Consumer Report ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; *The transactions are between me and the company. The person making the report is the company. Because they are defined as the person as the corporation. Right? But where does the transaction go? When you go to apply for a loan, thats a transaction. If the company is reporting me 30 days late, isnt that a transaction? Isnt that an experience? If theres a charge off on my report isnt that an experience. If a have a collection account on my consumer report isnt that an experience or transaction? The answer is YES!!!!\n\nCreditors failed to disclose vital information from me, and this is a violation. Per 16 CFR 433.2 Preservation of consumers claim and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\n\nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\nor, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\n\n[ 40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975 ; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975 ] The Credit Bureaus did not conduct a proper \" investigation '' according to the FCRA 15 USC 1681 which is a Violation. This was never done!! The CRAs are supposed to notify me of who they interviewed after the investigation is over. Just like the FBI conducts interviews of your neighbors request information concerning me meaning investigative consumer report this is what suppose to be done but never is. \n\n( XXXX ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681- Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 Block of Information resulting from Identity Theft On numerous occasions tried to resolve this issue with CRAs but to no avail. These entities did not have my consent to share my nonpublic information. Per 15 USC 6802 Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information. I was never given Notice from these entities that my nonpublic personal information would be disclose to nonaffiliated third party. Also, these entities did not clearly and conspicuously disclose to me in writing or in electronic form. I was never provided their company policies of the disclose and collection of my nonpublic information. \nI have identified these items circled in RED ink as a result of Identity Theft using my nonpublic information without my consent is Identity Theft. \nWhen I have requested these accounts be Blocked and Deleted I received respond from the CRA stating ( A ) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error ; The CRAs cant speak for me and it wasnt in error I have provided the Law of the violation.\n\n( B ) the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or. Where is the evidence or material misrepresentation Provide my with Proof The CRAs are only proving words that not proofing anything and theyre violating my Rights.\n\n( C ) the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. The CRAs doesnt have first-hand knowledge of anything and their making False Claims 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. \n\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \nCRAs are not respecting consumers Right to Privacy and they have GRAVE responsibility and assume a Vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. I have lost confidence in the system because the system isnt working for me. The CRAs and Creditors are constantly violating my rights to Privacy. \n\nI never gave Permission 4 Day Block and Remove method No Consent equal Identity Theft I have a Right to Privacy the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) requires financial institutions to safeguard the confidentiality of customer information. Under the XXXX, financial institutions must deliver notices to customers regarding the collection and information sharing policies; providing customers with the choice to opt-out if they do not want their information shared with nonaffiliated third parties. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ), ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ). \n\nIf any XXXX state, they had my consent please sign have the entity to sign an AFFIDAVIT under the penalty of perjury. \n\nCRA 's continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report when they are supposed to ensure information on my report is 100 % accurate according to FCRA. CRA 's comes back and state account \" VERIFIED '' they are taking the XXXX word instead of conducting their own independent investigation outside of the investigation being completed by the XXXX or XXXX Collector. So, the CRA is not supposed to reply on the information being supplied by the furnisher. \n\nMy credit report states the facts of all inaccurate information thats circled in red ink. The CRAs are not in compliance and violating the FCRA. The CRAs are committing ID THEFT by continue to report old addresses which are not my current address where I reside. \n\nI DONT CONSENT TO XXXX VERIFICATION! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nREMAINING QUESTIONS OF FACT XXXX. Whether the creditor complied with the XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is mandatory for enforcement of a credit card agreement XXXX. Whether the creditor clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumer, in writing or electronic form or other permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804, that such information may be disclosed to third parties 3. Whether the creditor provided in writing to consumer that his/her private, personal nonpublic information would be shared, sold and distributed to nonaffiliates third parties 4. Whether the creditor disclosure their company privacy policies to consumer in writing at the time of establishing a customer relationship. \n\n\nThese are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-12T23:17:02.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"34769","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7105125","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-06-12T23:04:39.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the <em>proceeds</em> of any purchase money <em>loan</em> ( as purchase money <em>loan</em> is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such <em>loan</em> contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES <em>WHICH</em> THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE <em>PROCEEDS</em> HEREOF."]},"sort":[9.090975,"7105125"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":136,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":136}]}},"product":{"doc_count":136,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":56,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":52},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":20,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":9},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":19,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":6},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":6},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional fixed mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":17}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":13},{"key":"Lease","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","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":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1},{"key":"Title loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":136,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":53,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":49},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":12,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":9},{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2},{"key":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":8},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1},{"key":"Delays with the closing process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":6,"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 while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":2},{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company explaining amount owed","doc_count":2},{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":2},{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Told you not to respond to a lawsuit they filed against you","doc_count":2},{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing dispute for services","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit denial","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fraudulent loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem while selling or giving up the vehicle","doc_count":1},{"key":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1},{"key":"Notification didn't disclose it was an attempt to collect a debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting a line of credit","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Settlement process and costs","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":136,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":136}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":136,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":109},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":26},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":136,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":136}]}},"company":{"doc_count":136,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":20},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":20},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":12},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":5},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":2},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"United PanAm Financial Corp.","doc_count":2},{"key":"ADP Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aldridge Pite, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Auto Credit of Virginia Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMW Financial Services NA, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Brock & Scott, PLLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CORELOGIC INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Consumer Adjustment Company Incorporated","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"E*TRADE BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"FC HoldCo LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"GUARANTEED RATE INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"General Motors Financial Company, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HOPE BANCORP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kinum, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Branch","doc_count":1},{"key":"LD Holdings Group, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Lennar Financial Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"M&T BANK CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"MARINER FINANCE, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"MORTGAGE LENDERS OF AMERICA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Account Systems of Omaha, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Solar Mosaic LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"United Military Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Village Capital & Investment LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WAFD BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"World Omni Financial Corp.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":136,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NJ","doc_count":21},{"key":"GA","doc_count":19},{"key":"FL","doc_count":11},{"key":"MI","doc_count":11},{"key":"VA","doc_count":10},{"key":"TX","doc_count":8},{"key":"IL","doc_count":6},{"key":"NE","doc_count":6},{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"NY","doc_count":5},{"key":"MO","doc_count":4},{"key":"CO","doc_count":3},{"key":"ID","doc_count":3},{"key":"IN","doc_count":3},{"key":"MA","doc_count":3},{"key":"MN","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"SC","doc_count":2},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"HI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":136,"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":63},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":7},{"key":"Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error","doc_count":1},{"key":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","doc_count":1},{"key":"Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":136,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":15},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[9.091631,"7105125"],"3":[7.891222,"2768198"],"4":[7.036287,"2970505"],"5":[6.4408813,"7383815"],"6":[5.01306,"20965210"]}}}