{"took":385,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":70,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3183480","_score":25.041763,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear cfpb, COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/2019 PRODUCT Mortgage ISSUE Trouble during payment process Unfortunately the respond coming from my Mortgage Company ( Dovenmuehle ) about my dispute is not correct, because I don't have an Issue ( Trouble during payment process ), and because they didn't addressed my issue about the Appraiser report mistakes, they just back and forth many times about I'm not qualify to remove the PMI now, which is I know that, but they still didn't want to go to the main issue ( the Appraiser Report ). So, please, if you could let them know about my concern. \n\nWith my all Appreciation. \n\nThanks. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2019-03-25T17:01:33.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"22033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3183480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.","date_received":"2019-03-18T21:53:12.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Dear cfpb, COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/2019 PRODUCT Mortgage <em>ISSUE</em> <em>Trouble</em> <em>during</em> <em>payment</em> process Unfortunately the respond coming from my Mortgage Company ( Dovenmuehle ) about my <em>dispute</em> is not <em>correct</em>, <em>because</em> I don't <em>have</em> an <em>Issue</em> ( <em>Trouble</em> <em>during</em> <em>payment</em> process ), and <em>because</em> they didn't addressed my <em>issue</em> about the Appraiser report mistakes, they just back and forth many times about I'm not qualify to remove the PMI now, which is I know that, but they still didn't want to go to the"]},"sort":[25.041763,"3183480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1694693","_score":17.679062,"_source":{"product":"Consumer Loan","complaint_what_happened":"I had an auto loan with chase auto finance that ended up being a total loss on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX paid their portion of the loan in XXXX XXXX and I contacted the dealer I purchased the vehicle from to fax the gap paperwork so I can get gap to cover the balance asap. I got in touch with gap and got the process going and never heard another word from chase or gap. I checked my credit in XXXX XXXX and saw I still had a balance on this loan so I sent a letter to chase asap and they responded that the loan was paid in full and closed. spring XXXX I noticed when I went to purchase a vehicle the lenders kept denying me saying I was 60 days late within 24 months so when I looked chase marked me for date of first delinquency XXXX and 60 days late with account paid and closed XXXX. I contacted chase and disputed several times through the credit agencies. the chase reps I spoke with went above and beyond to help me and had a few lates I got from moving out of state due to the payment issues I had because I did n't have statements to send with the payments and I greatly thank them for their help and understanding. they had trouble with the account being locked and archived when they tried again to correct the issue so during the cra dispute process someone at chase that handles the disputes changed my status from 60 days late to 91-120 days late and that I 'm XXXX payments past due and no matter how many times I dispute it everytime I dispute it and they report it the same my credit score goes down more and more. the lates are still removed from the payment history and I thank them for that. XXXX and XXXX XXXX are the only XXXX I 'm concerned with XXXX reported correctly.","date_sent_to_company":"2015-12-12T07:56:40.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Vehicle loan","zip_code":"471XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1694693","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2015-12-12T07:56:39.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I contacted chase and <em>disputed</em> several times through the credit agencies. the chase reps I spoke with went above and beyond to help me and had a few lates I got from moving out of state due to the <em>payment</em> <em>issues</em> I had <em>because</em> I did n't <em>have</em> statements to send with the <em>payments</em> and I greatly thank them for their help and understanding. they had <em>trouble</em> with the account being locked and archived when they tried again to <em>correct</em> the <em>issue</em> so <em>during</em> the cra <em>dispute</em> process someone at chase that handles"]},"sort":[17.679062,"1694693"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20205870","_score":14.92311,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I have reached out to Rocket Mortgage over 60 times since XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX about an issue that occurred where myself and a paramour living in a home did a refinance with the company and I assumed everything was done correctly but later found out a few months later after the refinance was completed and my partner had died that I had no ownership rights to the property because Rocket mortgage only had me recorded on the security deed and not on the warranty deed. This was very concerning and troubling as I wasnt aware at the time that two deeds should have been completed in the state of Georgia until after I had to hire two attorneys to deal with the home after her death in XXXX. Even more troubling was that it was as if I was being forced out of my home by the deceased family as they also had an attorney asking me to leave. I was paying the mortgage regularly even though without her income it was a significant hardship until I was advised by the attorney to stop making payments in XXXX of XXXX. I finally settled with her familys estate over 13 months later but the fight left me in financial distress as her heirs did not pay but one payment over 6 months. Therefore, I was left with a large past due balance with late fees and some corporate legal fees. I was able to avoid costly attorney fees by paying prior to them becoming involved. \n\nRocket mortgage did send over a loan modification that reduced payments a bit but would have increased the mortgage term to 40 years, which was not acceptable based on my age of being XXXX years old. I was hoping for some type of modification or concession that would correct the mistake that I feel was made by the Rocket mortgage closing team that would allow me to take on the security debt but have no ownership interest in a property that was my primary residence for over 6 years and without my income added to the loan application would not have been able to have been approved. We have repeatedly requested consideration of our situation and have been told that someone within the corporation would contact us about the request but havent heard back from anyone yet regarding some type of settlement to allow me to continue to keep the home and what was my good credit prior to the death and subsequent issues with title ownership, etc. Rocket mortgage representatives have been nice and provided customer service but either dont know or dont have the power to give a final answer to the request to reduce the fees/mortgage balance etc. Finally, I came home last year in XXXX and the door locks were changed as they had sent over a team to lock up the home during this back-and-forth dispute with the deceased relatives. I called and told them that I was going to continue to occupy the property and they gave us access to the property through a 4 digit code for the lockbox, but then they kept coming back and changing the locks after we notified them that we were going to try to make the necessary repairs and remain in the home. This is just an example of the extensive problems that I have experienced and would just like to have a response from the company to assist me in keeping the home, thanks in advance.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-12T16:39:11.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"30281","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20205870","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2026-03-12T15:53:58.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>have</em> reached out to Rocket Mortgage over 60 times since XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX about an <em>issue</em> that occurred where myself and a paramour living in a home did a refinance with the company and I assumed everything was done <em>correctly</em> but later found out a few months later after the refinance was completed and my partner had died that I had no ownership rights to the property <em>because</em> Rocket mortgage only had me recorded on the security deed and not on the warranty deed."],"issue":["<em>Trouble</em> <em>during</em> <em>payment</em> process"],"sub_issue":["Trying to communicate with the company to fix an <em>issue</em> while managing or servicing your loan"]},"sort":[14.92311,"20205870"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3982048","_score":14.602656,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Target Credit Card services to advise that I was having trouble submitting the XXXX payment online as customary. I tried twice and the payment failed both times despite having more than enough available funds in my XXXX XXXX savings account with routing number ending in XXXX. According to Target, the problem was not on their end. Somehow, the bank was routing the XXXX payment to an old account number ( same routing number ) ending in XXXX, instead of the intended account number ending in XXXX. \n\nDuring the XX/XX/XXXX call, the issue was corrected and full payment was collected via phone. There was no mention of additional penalties or forced account closure during the call. When I asked for a first-time courtesy waiver of the {$29.00} return fee, the request was denied. In response, I indicated that my card had been upgraded to a MasterCard ( vs store card ) to encourage additional spend, and I wanted to downgrade the card to my original plastic if this is the way they treat long-standing customers ( I have been a cardholder since XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. That request was also denied. I then stated that it was a horrible customer experience, driven by a bank error, and I planned to continue using the card in-store only going forward rather than continuing to support a bank that would penalize customers for their errors. The agent was rude and abrupt, cutting me off to say that this strict policy is mandated by Target corporation and not TD Bank ( the issuer ).\n\nSeveral days later, I received a vague adverse action letter stating that the card had been closed despite an impeccable payment history and ongoing active use of the card. With the closure of this tenured card, my credit score dropped 60 points with XXXX. While I am frustrated by the damage done to my credit score, I am writing because I called back again in XXXX to file a dispute and was denied the opportunity to do that. I asked the company to investigate what I believed to be punitive action and to confirm that it is indeed consistent with the Target Red Card agreement. I believe that the supervisor agent that I spoke with on XX/XX/XXXX engaged in disparate, unfair treatment and unilaterally decided to retaliate against me by closing the account, which was in good standing, to harm. When I called back, the new agent ( named XXXX XXXX told me that the card was closed because of the two returned payments ( not my error! ) and that the language in my Target credit card agreement called for closure according to its policy on returned payments. \n\nAfter revisiting the card agreement, there is no explicit language that says after 2 returned payments, your account will be closed - especially when those two occurrences happen within close proximity to each other and there is clearly a system error that needs to be addressed. \n\nIt is disappointing to know that this is how Target treats customers who have 100 % on-time payments and have long been loyal to the brand. More importantly, it is critical to gain clarity on this policy and ensure that there was no deceptive or unfair actions taken against me by this agent who represented Target on the XX/XX/XXXX call. The company is now demanding a final payment of {$41.00} consisting solely of fees associated with their bank error. And the threat is to further ruin my credit if I do not pay this final fee. After spending thousands of dollars each year on my Target card, this is shameful.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-30T22:06:35.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"782XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3982048","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","date_received":"2020-11-30T21:20:47.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Somehow, the bank was routing the XXXX <em>payment</em> to an old account number ( same routing number ) ending in XXXX, instead of the intended account number ending in XXXX. \n\n<em>During</em> the XX/XX/XXXX call, the <em>issue</em> was <em>corrected</em> and full <em>payment</em> was collected via phone. There was no mention of additional penalties or forced account closure <em>during</em> the call. When I asked for a first-time courtesy waiver of the {$29.00} return fee, the request was denied."]},"sort":[14.602656,"3982048"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7244103","_score":14.3951,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I filed for XXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy in XXXX of XXXX and included my car loan I received through Capital One Auto Financing. The Bankruptcy Case Number for the state of Louisiana is 20-10445. The amount of the car loan at the time of filing was {$17000.00} ( {$17000.00} secured, and {$630.00} unsecured ). I paid the full {$17000.00} of the secured portion of the debt and I'd only paid {$110.00} of the {$630.00} balance before the case was dismissed at the beginning of XXXX due to non-payment. I lost my job in XXXX of XXXX and was not able to make the final payment of {$520.00} towards the unsecured portion of the car loan debt. \nI received a letter in the mail from Capital One stating I owed {$1600.00} towards the loan. I've attempted to call several times to resolve this issue. I spoke with XXXX, ID # CWI twice, once on XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX. During the conversation on XX/XX/XXXX, I informed XXXX that the amount they stated I owed was incorrect and that I could submit court documentation showing the correct amount owed on the vehicle. She said she would notate the account and forward my dispute to management and for me to call back on XX/XX/XXXX. I called back on the date requested ( which is today, as of the writing of this complaint ). XXXX appeared to have trouble finding the notated documentation and then explained that the amount of {$1600.00} but did not attempt to provide me with instructions to upload my documents to prove the correct amount. She said I couldn't speak to someone in management but that she would escalate my dispute to the resolution department. \nI refused the request to transfer me b/c at this time, I feel like I'm getting the run-around and that this company is making it difficult for me to resolve this issue so that I can receive the title for my vehicle. I am now working and fully prepared to pay the remaining balance of {$520.00} as owed but I refuse to pay a company {$1600.00} with no other documentation other than a letter that states it. I'm also feeling cautious because the representative I spoke to was reluctant to provide me instructions of how to properly file a dispute online and upload my court documentation to show the correct amount I owe. I honestly just want to resolve this matter as quickly as possible and obtain my car 's title. Please assist with helping me get this matter resolved. Thank you. \n\nThe company 's information is listed below : Capital One Auto Finance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX The number listed is XXXX An additional address at the bottom of the form is Capital One Auto Finance XXXX XXXX XXXX City of Industry, CA XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-13T15:37:06.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"70448","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7244103","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-07-13T15:10:05.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with paying off the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX appeared to <em>have</em> <em>trouble</em> finding the notated documentation and then explained that the amount of {$1600.00} but did not attempt to provide me with instructions to upload my documents to prove the <em>correct</em> amount. She said I couldn't speak to someone in management but that she would escalate my <em>dispute</em> to the resolution department."]},"sort":[14.3951,"7244103"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1995444","_score":14.275833,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I noticed a collection debt on my credit reports and I disputed it because I had no idea what it was for. I received the dispute status back from the credit reporting agency and was informed that the debt remained. I contacted the company Central Financial and was informed that it was a bill from when I was XXXX. I informed the representative that they should have billed the insurance and then my Health Savings account that I provided to them in the ambulance and at the hospital prior. Somehow either the original hospital I went to did n't forward the information or they did n't bother to request reimbursement from the savings account credit card but instead they just sent it to collections. I never received anything contrary to what the company is stating. They are completely lying about sending me anything to show what the debt is for and ca n't even explain why they did n't submit the balance to the credit card/HSA card that should be on file. When I explained to the girl that I was willing to make a payment and take care of this bill but that they needed to delete it from my credit reports in return she informed me that they would n't. I informed her that it gave me no incentive to pay for it then so unless they remove it from my credit report then I would n't pay it at all. It 's not causing me any issues right now because it 's the only negative on my report and due to them not billing it correctly in the beginning, I now have to deal with this. I am willing to pay this bill now if they would agree to delete it from all XXXX credit reports that they have sent it too, otherwise it will delete off my report in another 5 1/2 years and I wo n't be paying anything. I do n't have a job at this time so I do n't have an income to even pay this bill, but I am still willing to take care of it thru my HSA account to get it removed from my credit report. They have to give me something in return since this is due to the practices of both XXXX XXXX and Central Financial Control who have both been in trouble for their billing & collection practices. This bill was actually incurred supposedly during the same time period that they were fined for and I should have been notified of the lawsuit against them.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-07-01T23:36:02.000Z","issue":"Disclosure verification of debt","sub_product":"Medical","zip_code":"85396","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1995444","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION","date_received":"2016-07-01T23:36:02.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Right to dispute notice not received"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It 's not causing me any <em>issues</em> right now <em>because</em> it 's the only negative on my report and due to them not billing it <em>correctly</em> in the beginning, I now <em>have</em> to deal with this. I am willing to pay this bill now if they would agree to delete it from all XXXX credit reports that they <em>have</em> sent it too, otherwise it will delete off my report in another 5 1/2 years and I wo n't be paying anything."],"sub_issue":["Right to <em>dispute</em> notice not received"]},"sort":[14.275833,"1995444"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11496193","_score":13.77891,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX\n\nI am lodging this formal dispute because, to date, and well over 9 months since I paid off my Care Credit account, and despite MANY phone calls and requests, Care Credit has continuously failed to correct my account. While the account is indeed listed as closed, as of XXXX it shows a balance of XXXX. \n\nAll of these issues stem from someone elses XXXX payment made in XXXX XXXX that was MISAPPLIED to my account. Below is a summary of the events that have taken place to date:\n\nAs of my XXXX  statement, my balance was at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, my husband and I refinanced our home with XXXX XXXX  The refinance included paying off all of the credit cards in my name. Care Credit was one of those cards.  My goal was to pay off my Care Credit account and then CLOSE the account. \n\nMy title company issued payment for the statement balance in midXXXX XXXX however the check was not received by Care Credit before the payment due date of XXXX so I made an interest only payment in the amount of XXXX on the due date of XXXX  I have records of phone calls to Care Credit at various times in XXXX including twice on XXXX  and once on XXXX. Any calls I would have made earlier in the month would have been made from my office phone and I dont have access to those long distance call records. \n\nI called Care Credit on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX about the payment that had been reissued and checked to see if theyd received it and also questioned them about the misapplied payment of XXXX. I was told it would take a couple of billing cycles to correct the misapplied payment. \n\nMy title company issued a stop payment on the prior check issued to Care Credit, and thereafter reissued the check and overnight mailed it to Care Credit.  Care Credit posted this payment to my account on XXXX \n\nMy next Care Credit statement dated 0XXXX notes the following activity: (1) a credit applied which was described as dispute-temporary credit in the amount oXXXX XXXX on XXXX; (2) a payment in the amount of XXXX posted on XXXX (THIS IS THE INFAMOUS MISAPPLIED PAYMENT THAT HAS CAUSED SO MUCH TROUBLE) and (3) another separate payment in the amount of XXXX posted XXXX (THIS WAS THE INTEREST ONLY PAYMENT I MADE).   The ending statement balance was negative XXXX.\n\nThe next statement issued by Care Credit was dated XXXX  and notes the following activity: (1) payment in the amount of XXXX (THIS WAS THE CHECK FROM THE TITLE COMPANY MENTIONED IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS PARAGRAPH); and (2) a balance adjustment of XXXX  The ending statement balance was negative XXXX \n\nThe next statement issued by Care Credit was dated XXXX. There was no activity on the account and the ending statement balance was, again, negative XXXX \n\nThe next statement issued by Care Credit was dated XXXXXXXX. Again, no activity was on the account and the ending statement balance was once again, negative XXXX \n\nMy cell phone records reflect I also called Care Credit on XXXX XXXX twice for a total of 10 minutes. Because these calls were so short I assume I was just calling about the status of them reversing the misapplied payment and applying it to the correct account. I still wanted to close my account, but could not do so until this issue was fixed.\n\nThe next statement issued by Care Credit was dated XXXX. Once again, no activity was on the account and the ending statement balance remained at negative XXXX. \n\nI next called Care Credit on XXXX and was furious when I checked my account and saw that they had issued a refund check in the amount of XXXX. I told them that I never got that check and even if I had, I would not have cashed it because I was not owed that, and that I was only owed XXXX  I spent about 30 minutes on the phone with them that day. I lodged another complaint and they said theyd look into it. \n\nThe next statement issued by Care Credit was dated XXXX. Activity reflected on this statement was as follows: (1) a refund check issued XXXX in the amount of XXXX  (2) a balance adjustment of XXXX on XXXX and (3) another separate balance adjustment on XXXX in the amount of XXXX Due to all of this activity, the ending statement balance went from negative XXXX all the way up to XXXX \n\nI called Care Credit twice on XXXX, three separate times on XXXX and once on XXXX. I again told them that I never received any such refund check and even if I had I would not have cashed it because it was not my money. I also reiterated once again that the $XXXX was owed back to me as a refund of the interest payment I made back in XXXX. Youll see on their XXXX XXXX statement they did send me a check for the XXXX which I cashed. I also complained about the current noted balance of XXXX  and questioned why it was still there. I recall going up the ladder to several representatives and managers and was assured that my credit would be corrected as I felt their actions were causing my credit score to decrease. I was told by the last representative I spoke with that he would correct my credit score THAT SAME DAY but that the balance issue would need to cycle through and to just be patient. \n\nCare Credits next statement was dated XXXX Multiple entries are noted on this statement which consisted of the following:  (1) a credit described as dispute-temporary credit on XXXX  in the amount of XXXX (2) another separate credit described as XXXX on XXXX in the amount of XXXXXXXX  (recall, this was the refund check they supposedly sent out on XXXX; (3) a refund check in the amount of XXXX (described in the paragraph above); (4) a credit described as customer settlement in the amount of XXXX on XXXX and (5) another separate credit described as customer settlement in the amount of XXXX also on XXXX. As a result of all of this activity on my account during this statement period, the ending statement balance was negative XXXX \n\nI did not make any phone calls to Care Credit during the month oXXXX XXXX, because I had been told in XXXX to let things cycle through. \n\nCare Credits next statement was dated XXXX. The only activity reflected on this statement was a supposed payment on XXXX described as Payment thank you XXXX  OH with payment no interest. The ending statement balance was noted to be XXXX.  I can assure you, I never made any such payment. Why would I when my account was supposed to be at XXXX? For all I know, they misapplied someone elses payment for a second time. I dont know where this came from.  \n\nAfter seeing the XXXX statement, I was admittedly extremely frustrated and angry. I called them twice on 10XXXX  and spent a total of 144 minutes on the phone with that day alone, and another 54 minutes on the phone with them two days later on XXXX. I did not get anywhere with them despite speaking with at least 7 people and recall being told that my calling was starting things over in terms of their investigative process. I also recall being told that they were in the process of investigating their prior investigation especially with regard to the XXXX  refund check they supposedly issued in XXXX  which I never got (and even if I had, would not have cashed it). I questioned and asked to speak with their legal department, threatened to sue them, and demanded answers to no avail. I just kept getting the same old run around that I had already been getting for many months. \n\nI called Care Credit again on XXXX and spent 74 minutes on the phone with them. What prompted this call was that I received a collection call from them asking me to make a payment on my account. They told me that they would remove me from the list of collection calls. I demanded to speak to their legal department and was told they had none. I lodged yet another complaint, and got the same old speech that theyd look into it.  As I was on hold towards the end of the phone call, they disconnected the call. I did not call back as I was at work and could not get away.  \n\nThe XXXX XXXX was the last statement I had access to. I cannot get into my online account. I have not seen the XXXX XXXXXXXX or XXXX XXXX statements. However, I have been getting email reminders from Care Credit. \n\nThe latest email reminder I received from Care Credit stated that the minimum amount due for XXXX was due by XXXX These email reminders also state that the account balance is currently at XXXX. \n\nThe last time I called Care Credit was XXXX I explained everything (again) and did not understand why this was still showing up on my account. I told the representative that I saw on my credit report that the account is still showing as closed but that there was still a balance showing so it was looking bad on me-  as if I didnt pay my bill and it was closed as a bad debt or something like that. I told her that this was going on far too long (almost a year) and I was tired of being told the same old thing time and time again. Predictably, she stated that theyd look into it. She also told me that they have no way of verifying whether the XXXX refund check was ever cashed by me. I told her that cannot be possible, but that is what she said.  I was told it would take another 60 days to figure things out.  \n\nI thereafter received a letter from Care Credit dated XXXXXXXX which stated We are researching the payment in question. You are not responsible for paying the disputed amount during our investigation. Therefore, while we complete our research we have issued a temporary credit to your account in the amount of XXXX for the payment dated XXXX  and associated interest and fees  THIS IS INSANE. NOW, ALMOST AN ENTIRE YEAR LATER, THEY ARE INVESTIGATING WHETHER THEY RECEIVED THE FIRST CHECK ON XXXX WHICH, OF COURSE, THEY DID NOT BECAUSE MY TITLE COMPANY PUT A STOP PAYMENT ON THAT CHECK, RE-ISSUED THE PAYMENT AND OVERNIGHT MAILED IT TO THEM, AND THEY CASHED IT. AGAIN, THE RECEIVED PAYMENT IS REFLECTED ON MY XXXX XXXX  CARE CREDIT STATEMENT. \n\nIn summary, there just does not seem to be any resolution and it is the same thing with Care Credit each and every time I speak with them. I have spent HOURS on the phone with them and have called no less than 19 times (including XXXX since XXXX XXXX Nothing is being done and this needs to be fixed. I have gone about as high as I can go with them and am seriously considering legal action but wanted to try lodging formal complaints with all three credit bureaus first.  \n\nI have also in the last two weeks lodged complaints/disputes with all three credit bureaus. None of these have been helpful as Care Credit is still erroneously stating I owe them money, but that I am not also over 30 days past due on my bill.   Nobody over there is taking the time to go back through the statements, look at the transactions posted to my account, and correct their errors. \n\nAgain, my credit needs to be corrected so that it shows I paid off my balance in full, there were no delinquent payments, and the account should be closed. As it stands right now, it looks like I have not paid my credit card off which is false. All of the activity that has been on this account since XXXX XXXX   the misapplied payment, the removal of the XXXX from my account, and then charging it back to my account time and time and time again. These people at Care Credit are completely incompetent and at this point I feel it is deliberate on their part- there is something going on over there that is not on the up and up.  They need to do whatever they need to correct the record in this matter- and that would be to (1) reflect on my credit report that the account is at a XXXX balance; (2) remove all references to delinquency; (3) reflect that the account was paid in full; and (4) the account is closed.  \n\nPlease contact me at XXXX if you have any questions or write me at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ XXXX. You may also call me anytime at XXXX. Thank you for your assistance.\n\nSincerely,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-14T01:58:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"85388","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11496193","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2025-01-14T01:13:28.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX\n\nI am lodging this formal <em>dispute</em> <em>because</em>, to date, and well over 9 months since I paid off my Care Credit account, and despite MANY phone calls and requests, Care Credit has continuously failed to <em>correct</em> my account. While the account is indeed listed as closed, as of XXXX it shows a balance of XXXX. \n\nAll of these <em>issues</em> stem from someone elses XXXX <em>payment</em> made in XXXX XXXX that was MISAPPLIED to my account."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[13.77891,"11496193"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14989433","_score":13.074028,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint because multiple inaccuracies have been reported on my credit file with Equifax, and despite previous attempts to have them corrected, these items remain unresolved. \n\nFirst, I have noticed an incorrect address listed on my credit file XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, MD XXXX. I have never lived at this location, and I have already provided the necessary documentation to verify my actual address history. It is extremely concerning that outdated or inaccurate address information continues to be reported. \n\nAdditionally, several accounts are showing late payments that are either inaccurate or unsubstantiated. These include : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Account # XXXX ), which is reporting late payments despite my consistent payment record. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ), showing a late payment, though I had made an arrangement with them during a financial hardship. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) is also reporting a delinquency, which I have disputed due to inconsistent billing practices on their end. \n\nXXXX ( Account # XXXX ), Armed Forces Bank ( Account XXXX XXXX ), XXXX  ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX and XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX all show late payments or derogatory marks that are either inaccurate or were caused by errors in billing cycles or unexpected auto-debit issues. \n\nOne of the most troubling entries is the XXXX XXXX account ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which is being reported as a collection with a balance of {$4200.00}. I was never informed of this going into collections, and I believe this is a serious reporting error. \n\nLastly, there are multiple unauthorized hard inquiries on my credit report, including those from XXXX ( XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year> ), XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ). I did not apply for credit with these institutions, nor did I authorize them to access my credit file. \n\nUnder the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 602 ( A ), 607 ( B ), and 611, I have the right to a credit report that is fair, accurate, and substantiated. Equifax has failed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they are reporting. These errors are harming my credit score, causing me financial stress, and impeding my ability to secure fair financing and housing. \n\nI am requesting the CFPB to investigate this matter thoroughly. I would like these incorrect addresses, erroneous late payments, unauthorized inquiries, and false collection account to be deleted from my credit report. Additionally, I would appreciate a written confirmation once the inaccuracies have been resolved. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-01T00:59:14.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"207XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14989433","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-01T00:54:24.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this complaint <em>because</em> multiple inaccuracies <em>have</em> been reported on my credit file with Equifax, and despite previous attempts to <em>have</em> them <em>corrected</em>, these items remain unresolved. \n\nFirst, I <em>have</em> noticed an incorrect address listed on my credit file XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, MD XXXX. I <em>have</em> never lived at this location, and I <em>have</em> already provided the necessary documentation to verify my actual address history."]},"sort":[13.074028,"14989433"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3205486","_score":12.792965,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, my clients XXXX and XXXX XXXX became aware via their XXXX Credit Report Alert that EOS CCA ( A  collection agency ) was reporting a negative collection item on their credit profile. \nThe XXXX ( s ) immediately contacted my office, their Business Management CPA Firm, asking us to follow-up. \n\nThe client informed me that they had already done some preliminary research that included a telephone call to XXXX XXXX ( previously XXXX ). The client was informed by a XXXX XXXX representative that there was in fact an account opened under their previous company XXXX in the name of XXXX XXXX and was able to obtain the account number. \n\nObtaining the account number was important because the client did previously have a XXXX XXXX account ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that had been paid ( was an auto pay account ) in full and closed. \nWhen the client contacted XXXX XXXX they were initially told that the account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and was closed by XXXX XXXX last month ( XX/XX/XXXX ) for non-payment. The representative reported to the client that there had never been a payment on the account since it was opened in XX/XX/XXXX. This is very troubling because its uncommon for a monthly utility service who will typically discontinue service and close accounts within a couple of months for non-payment. \n\nSecondly, during this time the client did have an active and valid account with XXXX XXXX which was the account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( service address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX, UT ) previously mentioned above. You would think that if a second account had been opened under the clients name that remained unpaid for 16 years, XXXX XXXX would have contacted the client since they did have his correct information on file from the account that remained in good standing. \n\nNonetheless, because the valid account was for services related to a partnership venture the client was not 100 % sure that the account was/is fraud. We have checked with all of the bookkeepers involved from XX/XX/XXXX to date and there are no records of the XXXX account or payments being made to that account. And, if the client had ever received the invoice it would have been paid timely first and resolved later. They would not have allowed it to become a negative reporting on their credit profile. Unfortunately, they were not made aware of this erroneous account as they dont live or do business at the service address in question. \n\nUpon the client forwarding their documentation to me to determine what was going on, I called EOS-CCA ( Collection Agency ) with the client on the line who authorized EOS-CCA to work directly with me to resolve the issue to and thru receiving payment from me if it was determined that it was in fact the clients account and responsibility. \n\nEOS-CCA didnt have any detailed information about the account, service address, who set it up, etc. They only had the date of set-up and the balance owed. \n\nMrs. XXXX ( the client ) called XXXX XXXX several times to no avail at which point I took over calling XXXX XXXX. I engaged in conversation with a representative who told me that the service address for the service provided was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA. She also confirmed that the service address was also the billing address. When I tried to obtain additional information about the account in terms of who set it up, I was asked to verify the account by answering the security questions. \nBecause neither my client nor I set-up the account, we couldnt verify the account or answer the security questions. \n\nThe representative helped me as much as she could while stressing that I should contact the Dispute Department of XXXX XXXX assuring me that they would be able to provide me additional information and potentially finding resolution to account XXXX originally opened by XXXX. \n\nDuring the conversation, I was also able to ascertain, contrary to what was initially reported to Mrs. XXXX, that payment had been made on the account from XX/XX/XXXX up until XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX.  The representative also told me a final notice was mailed to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX address prior to action being taken. I believe she said before action was taken as opposed to services discontinued. \n\nMy client, XXXX XXXX, is fully willing to pay the {$390.00} owed if this is in fact his account and responsibility. \n\nBecause Mr. XXXX has no knowledge of the existence of this account and can confirm that he never approved service being opened at the service address reported, he is requesting that the negative credit reporting be removed from his credit profile immediately. \n\nSubmitted by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( Accountant )","date_sent_to_company":"2019-04-08T21:44:09.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90024","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3205486","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EOS Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2019-04-08T21:28:12.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is very <em>troubling</em> <em>because</em> its uncommon for a monthly utility service who will typically discontinue service and close accounts within a couple of months for non-<em>payment</em>. \n\nSecondly, <em>during</em> this time the client did <em>have</em> an active and valid account with XXXX XXXX which was the account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( service address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX, UT ) previously mentioned above."]},"sort":[12.792965,"3205486"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3696399","_score":12.50397,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is my ongoing XXXX chat with Capitol One, beginning XX/XX/XXXX. As I explain in my posts to them, I had already spoken to people on the phone, with no action. I have had credit reduced and a credit card canceled bc they failed to correct their mistake. Their mistake tanked my score down to XXXX. Not okay. The fact that they refuse to take immediate -- or even delayed -- action is inexcusable. Please help! Thank you. \n\nXX/XX/2020, XXXX XXXX Furious with # CapitalOne. They misreported a credit card payment as 30 and then 60 days late in XXXX and XXXX. I have had a {$0.00} balance for over a year. My credit score TANKED. So, I called in early XXXX and they said, yes, there was an error and it would be reported correctly on XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX comes and goes, no change. I had started a dispute the same day. I just got a notice from XXXX  about my dispute. NO CHANGE. Called Capital One, and after waiting forever, the rep was like, oh, it's resolved in your favor and you should be getting a letter that says so. Oh? Then WHY IS IT STILL SHOWING UP AS TWO LATE PAYMENTS?? \" It can take up to two months to show up on your credit report. '' XXXX? I've already had an XXXX card cancelled bc of my credit score .... it had a balance of {$0.00} and they said bc of the lack of use of the card AND my credit score, they were cancelling my card. So, with apparently many creditors feeling anxious about possible overuse of credit during pandemic time, I'm now at risk for losing more credit, which will increase my credit usage percentage and FURTHER TANK MY SCORE, until Capital One gets around to fixing this. I am beyond furious and I am helpless to do anything about it. \n\nHey XXXX! Thanks for bringing this to our attention ... we can completely understand why you're frustrated. Would you share the full name and zip code attached to the account? XXXX Yes, thanks. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Thanks! Did you ever receive a case number, or did you get an agent ID from an agent who was helping you with the credit bureau dispute? ^XXXX  From XXXX. Hold on. \nXXXX I was told on the phone today that I'd be receiving a letter, but I don't have that yet. I was assured by the rep I spoke with in early XXXX that the XX/XX/XXXX reporting would clear this up. But, it seems nothing would have happened if I had not opened a dispute. \n\nGotcha. Do you know the last four digits of the account you're referring to? ^XXXX  XXXX Thanks! And just to further clarify ... the last time you called were you able to speak directly to a supervisor about this? XXXX No, I didn't think I needed to. The woman I spoke with said that I was correct, that my balance had been {$0.00} on that card for about a year, and perhaps it was bc I set up for autopay that the system made the error. She said it would be reported correctly on XX/XX/XXXX. \nToday I did not speak w a supervisor either. \n\nWith the XXXX  dispute number you provided, I can't see the details of that, but have they had any communication with you about this at all? We know it's all frustrating, but it does fall on the credit bureaus to update the information if we were able to fix the incorrect reporting during the dispute process. ^XXXX  There are two separate issues here. ( 1 ) My initial phone call during which I was told C1 would provide the correct information on XX/XX/XXXX. ( 2 ) My disputes that I opened with the credit bureaus. Let 's forget about the second thing and discuss the first. That is when I was told that C1 would correct the error that was made through no fault of my own. I was told it would be fixed. I only submitted the dispute as a back up. It is NOT up to the credit bureaus to correct information when they are being provided incorrect information, which is what happened her. It is up to C1 to provide the correct information NOW. It should have been fixed on XX/XX/XXXX. There is not a single acceptable reason for why C1 did not fix its error on XX/XX/XXXX. I should NOT have to wait for two or three cycles for this to \" fix itself. '' As I said, my credit score TANKED bc of this. I had an XXXX card closed bc of my \" new '' score. \nSo, that caused my credit utilization percentage to go up with further tanked my score. \n\nI appreciate the additional information. Can you share your best contact number? I'll forward your concerns over to a supervisor, so they can review and follow up with you. ^XXXX  Thank you. XXXX. \n\nNo problem! A specialist should be in touch within about 5 business days. ^XXXX  Thank you. \n\nMon XXXX XXXX  I'm still waiting to hear from someone. I just had ANOTHER credit card decrease my limit because of this error. I'm losing patience. \n\nHey XXXX! Thanks for following up. I've sent another request for someone to contact you about this ... we appreciate your patience. ^XXXX  Thank you. I don't have any patience since the letter I opened today from another credit card lowering my limit due to my credit score.\n\nWe understand. I've marked my request as urgent, will follow up if they have trouble contacting you. ^XXXX  Wed XXXX XXXX I have still not heard from anyone. \n\nYour case has been escalated and you should be hearing from our leadership team. ^XXXX  Thank you. \n\nYou are welcome. And thanks for reaching out to Capital One via the social media channels. ^XXXX   XXXX XXXX  Two weeks and I've heard nothing.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-12T19:41:53.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"223XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3696399","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-06-12T19:30:42.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We know it's all frustrating, but it does fall on the credit bureaus to update the information if we were able to fix the incorrect reporting <em>during</em> the <em>dispute</em> process. ^XXXX  There are two separate <em>issues</em> here. ( 1 ) My initial phone call <em>during</em> which I was told C1 would provide the <em>correct</em> information on XX/XX/XXXX. ( 2 ) My <em>disputes</em> that I opened with the credit bureaus. Let 's forget about the second thing and discuss the first."]},"sort":[12.50397,"3696399"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7642030","_score":12.469291,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2023, I placed an order for furniture on the XXXX XXXX XXXX website. The order # XXXX was assigned to the furniture I wanted, and the payment was successfully processed using my Synchrony PayPal MasterCard for the amount of {$2300.00} that day it was charged. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contacted the seller via chat to inquire about shipping time and dates on their website XXXX XXXX XXXX and did a virtual chat with a representative stating that it would take 3 to 5 business days for tracking information. Note : I did screen shot that conversation to fax as requested to the dispute team for PayPal MasterCard. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated an open claim to do a chargeback with Synchrony PayPal MasterCard for the amount reasons for not receiving merchandise at that time I did not want to pay interest or pay for product not received yet. In response, PayPal promptly placed the balance on hold, relieving me of any obligation to make payments or incur fees for interest during this process. And to note I found out later in XXXX I was not aware that they put it in as a dispute instead of chargeback. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I have not received the tracking information from seller XXXX XXXX XXXX for the furniture I wanted and by this time PayPal MC has charged my credit card again for the amount which was a disappointment to me considering I have not received the furniture yet. So, I contacted Synchrony PayPal MasterCard to put in another chargeback until I received my furniture, and this turned into a dispute that PayPal MC representative put in for me And I was fine with that considering I had not received any tracking information or any email updates from this seller. \n\nI think at the beginning of XXXX, I contacted synchrony PayPal MasterCard again just to get updates on when I will get a refund for this because I have not received any information or updates from the seller. At this time PayPal MC wanted me to give the seller 40 days to send my furniture. The dispute team representative for synchrony PayPal said they got this off the website which I thought was strange that PayPal did not even contact the seller about tracking info with numbers or when I can receive product. To my dismay PayPal MC reinstated the funds to the merchant, which left me disappointed. However, I decided to exercise patience and wait for the full 40-days from the time of purchase timeframe as requested. \n\nBy this time, I had to keep putting in disputes so I would not be charged an interest fee and a monthly payment until I receive merchandise. \nAgain, I received my bill from synchrony PayPal MC asking me to pay a portion of the amount charged for the furniture that I have not received yet. I find this very disheartening to pay for something I have not received yet and have to pay a bill for. I did call PayPal MC to inform them that I will be putting in a dispute for the seller XXXX XXXX XXXX after the 40 days that PayPal MC requested me to wait for not providing tracking information and not delivering on their promise to send me merchandise that I am being charged for if they have not sent me tracking after the 40 days. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I initiated a chat conversation with XXXX XXXX XXXX to address the prolonged delay in my order. During the chat, I communicated to the representative that the order had surpassed the 40-day policy and requested a full refund due to seller not holding up there in after the 40 days, along with a full refund. To my surprise, the merchant informed me via chat that they had already canceled the order, and that they did not receive funds for PayPal MC Instead, they indicated that the funds were held by PayPal Mastercard, suggesting that I should contact PayPal directly to facilitate the process of obtaining a complete refund. Note : I did screen shot that conversation to fax as requested to the dispute team for PayPal MasterCard. \n\nOn the same day XX/XX/XXXX I contacted PayPal MasterCard to inform them that the merchant stated that they did not have my money refund and funds were held by PayPal and that they were not going to send product because of the initial dispute that was put in on XX/XX/XXXX I informed them that I did not put in a dispute I only put in a charge back that was PayPal MasterCards dispute team addressing the situation and not correctly categorizing my discernment with pain with a chargeback instead they put it as a dispute instead and that was not my fault I was not intending on canceling my purchase at that time I was intending to let PayPal know that they shouldnt charge me for merchant that I have not received yet. \n\nIn XXXX, By this time I had to keep putting in for disputes with PayPal dispute team to correct the situation and give me back my funds that they are holding from me. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contact the seller XXXX XXXX XXXX support via chat that for the past three months, I have been engaged in ongoing correspondence with both XXXX XXXX XXXX 's support team via chat and PayPal MasterCard and during a conversation with XXXX XXXX XXXX support, it was revealed that the furniture was not shipped due to a dispute I raised with PayPal. I must clarify that I initiated the dispute after waiting for more than 40 days for the furniture to arrive, which I believe is an excessively long duration for such a purchase. I informed PayPal MasterCard of this because PayPal MC said seller shipped Merchandise to me but yet I dont have tracking or nor did I sign for anything of the sort and that I owe {$2300.00} And I inform PayPal that I did not receive nor signed my signature for that furniture. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, After I contacted the seller again XXXX XXXX XXXX by email and stated the same thing I reached out to PayPal MasterCard to let them know that the seller XXXX XXXX XXXX claimed they didn't have the money funds either from PayPal MC. The seller XXXX XXXX XXXX also said they wouldn't send the product due to an issue that started on XX/XX/XXXX with a dispute. I clarified to XXXX XXXX XXXX the seller that I didn't file a dispute but rather a chargeback during that time because PayPal had already billed me for this merchandise, and I did not have the merchandise in my possession. PayPal MasterCard 's dispute team mislabeled it as a dispute, which was not my intention because I put in for a chargeback during that time in XXXX. I just wanted to inform PayPal MC that they shouldnt charge me for a product I hadn't received yet and to put it as a chargeback. Now Im believing that this led to a chain reaction leading to no merchandise sent and PayPal still holding funds on both ends. \n\nIn XXXX, I found myself in a situation where I had to initiate another dispute with PayPal MasterCard. This became necessary because I wasn't receiving any assistance from them, and my credit card still carried a balance of {$2300.00} with an impending payment due. Consequently, I had to file a dispute to avoid making that payment. Additionally, I wanted to communicate that the merchandise I had ordered had not been sent, and I was seeking a full refund. \n\nWhen I contacted PayPal, they informed me that the seller claimed to have sent the merchandise to me, which was not true. To date, I have not received anything, yet I am being billed for a product I do not possess. I requested PayPal MasterCard to provide me with tracking information, but they have yet to do so. They mentioned that they released funds in favor of the seller based on the assertion that I received the merchandise, which is untrue. \n\nToday is XX/XX/XXXX, and I'm still facing the same issue that started earlier this year. I have an update from the seller, XXXX XXXX XXXX. I reached out to them via email today to discuss resolving the situation since Synchrony PayPal MasterCard hasn't taken any action. In the email I left my name and number to contact me again about resolving this situation and in the process of writing this letter to CFPB, I received the sellers call. I did record audio of the conversation as evidence for PayPal MasterCard, showing that the seller didn't send the merchandise. \n\nThe seller XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX XXXX XXXX, informed me that PayPal hasn't released funds to him either. He apologized for the trouble I've been through, and From what I gathered on the conversation that we had he has other funds from buyers being held by PayPal because of this situation, Im guessing he wanted to reach out now considering this is causing him to not receive funds for the other sales being held due to this situation but I do wished and expressed to him that we could have resolved this sooner with only him having funds held up for just me not others that use PayPal as a form of credit. He mentioned that he wanted to resolve this through PayPal as well but they are giving him the run a round as well as myself And he mentioned that he wanted a restocking fee which I informed him that I did not cancel my order I just never received shipping information in PayPal and their neglect didnt relay information to him or myself about both parties I myself did reach out several times about shipping to them and I informed him I have not received any information on his side until now because of money held up for other purchases he wants to retrieve. I mentioned that the problem might have originated from PayPal categorizing it as a dispute instead of a chargeback, which set off a chain reaction that PayPal didn't rectify on either end.\n\nThe seller has confirmed that he doesn't possess the funds he initially claimed, and I have yet to receive my full refund of {$2300.00} from PayPal MC. In my view, a fair resolution would involve me receiving my complete refund from PayPal MasterCard. Additionally, I believe PayPal MC should not charge credit card unless seller have tracking info with dates and maybe PayPal covers any fee for seller, as my intention was to acquire the merchandise. Unfortunately, circumstances have led me to purchase alternative furniture, rendering the items he has on hand unnecessary. \n\nI apologize for the length of this letter, and I tried to put the dates in as close as possible to when I remembered them and some of the record keeping I have saved to convey the ongoing nature of this issue. Managing everything has been quite challenging, especially given that it's been nearly six months of dealing with this situation. but I wanted to provide as much detail as possible. I hope that this information can assist in resolving the issue between myself and the seller, as well as our ongoing situation with the credit card company Synchrony PayPal MasterCard. I look forward to hearing from you soon and am hopeful that you can provide assistance in this matter. \nPS I tried to attach all the documents I could find to help me and I could not upload the audio due to audio file to large. \n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-05T04:35:27.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"28217","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7642030","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2023-10-05T03:11:44.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I clarified to XXXX XXXX XXXX the seller that I didn't file a <em>dispute</em> but rather a chargeback <em>during</em> that time <em>because</em> PayPal had already billed me for this merchandise, and I did not <em>have</em> the merchandise in my possession. PayPal MasterCard 's <em>dispute</em> team mislabeled it as a <em>dispute</em>, which was not my intention <em>because</em> I put in for a chargeback <em>during</em> that time in XXXX."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[12.469291,"7642030"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4587395","_score":12.458033,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To : Experian XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nRe : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX And XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX To whom may concern, I had a mortgage loan with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, since XXXX and held a checking and savings account with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX since XXXX. Payments to the mortgage loan were made by an automated system and online banking always paid as agreed. I moved to XXXX  by the end of XXXX, rented the property and continued making my mortgage loan payments as agreed. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX was shot down by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp ( FDIC ). According to their webpage, XXXX my account would be acquired by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, same financial institution where the mortgage loan was serviced, thru their subsidiary, XXXX XXXX. The transition of the financial institutions took place between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nSince XX/XX/XXXX I tried contacting the Department of Customer Service of both financial institutions to make sure I wouldnt have any difficulties to perform any transactions from the checking account and continue to make the mortgage payments after the merging between the two banks. Their response was, that I should wait until the completion of the transition between the 2 banks and they will disclose soon my new account number and provide me with a welcome kit related to the transition and instruction on how to manage payments. \nThe mortgage loan ( XXXX ) with XXXX XXXX  was paid thru the checking account of the bank that no longer existed since XX/XX/XXXX. The proceeds were deposited by the tenants and payments made thru the automated system thru XXXX XXXX, now XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The transition was completed on XX/XX/XXXX and last payment to XXXX XXXX  went through XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX, I no longer had any access to the account or the money deposited nor able to made any payment. \nNumerous calls and conversations with their XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX since XXXX, XXXX, XXXX were made unsuccessfully. The bank had an incorrect mailing address and suggested their only way to receive information about my new recently acquired account was by changing my mailing address. However, after several attempts to do so, they failed to send me the required information about my account and refused to provide any information and or making a debit to make a payment to the mortgage, because they were not able to identify me over the phone. They suggested to travel to the island to resolute in person the issue by visiting the branch facilities. \nA complaint ( # XXXX ) was filed to XXXX XXXX thru their customer service, Ms. XXXX  XXXX with the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Mrs. XXXX XXXXXXXX suggested another change of address. The form was completed and returned to her with the correct address in order to receive a duplicate of information of the deposit account along with a check book and a debit card with a pin will give me access to their online system and be able to make a mortgage payment. This attempt was also unsuccessful, as no documentation from the bank was received. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Ive filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Complaint # XXXX. ( Annex D ). On XX/XX/XXXX a response of the complaint was received by Mrs. XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX  stating the bank sent the welcome kit and inferring that the merged between the two banks did not cause any issue to their customers and XXXX XXXX was not to blame about the past due payments on my mortgage loan. Ironically, their response received thru the official complaint made with the CFPB portal, still had an incorrect mailing address, evidencing the bank simply kept failing to correct the address and provide me with access or any information related to the XXXX account. Furthermore, their response to my complaint was that my mortgage loan had some issued in the past with XXXX XXXX. This letter was completely vague and erroneous because I never held any mortgage loan with the defunct bank. Couldnt she just verify my loan history to confirm all this before responding? No, she did not. \nXXXX XXXX responses to my claims were always vague, inadequate and contradictory. Furthermore, no resolution was offered to this issue other than by going in person to fix their mess. During my claims also requested the indulgence of the late fees between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX and to update negative information to the different Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ). \n\nFinally, on XX/XX/XXXX a duplicate of a debit card but was received thru XXXX. After few calls and a couple of more obstacles I was able to validate using a pin number sent and get back to access to my XXXX and hopefully pay the mortgage loan. Sadly, I was indicted by Bank that at that point they no longer can help me, because, now the mortgage loan can not accept payments thru the online banking system, because it was referred to collection division and the only way to make a resolution was by calling their loss mitigation division and make an agreement to pay the mortgage. \nDespite my frustration trigger by all the obstacles the Bank has imposed, I received my check book on XX/XX/XXXX, and was able to resolve the issue by sending over the mail a check to pay the mortgage loan including all past due amounts and continued to pay the loan without any trouble since the day I paid the mortgage in full on XX/XX/XXXX, when the property was put on the market and sold. \nMore than six ( 6 ) years has passed since the above-mentioned issue, and recently found that the bank reported negative marks to the credit agency that included a pre foreclosure code. Not only there was not foreclosure, but the loan was paid in full as agreed. Therefore, this negative code, keep showing on my credit report and are completely erroneous. I have engaged the service of a law firm to help with this matter that happened over six years ago, and made a dispute to the different credit reporting agencies to remove the FS code. Fortunately, XXXX  was able to investigate further and correct the report. At this point Im asking the same to Experian. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-29T12:50:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20164","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4587395","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-07-29T12:50:35.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>have</em> engaged the service of a law firm to help with this matter that happened over six years ago, and made a <em>dispute</em> to the different credit reporting agencies to remove the FS code. Fortunately, XXXX  was able to investigate further and <em>correct</em> the report. At this point Im asking the same to Experian. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[12.458033,"4587395"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14948930","_score":12.195723,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against TransUnion because my credit report contains a large number of inaccurate, outdated, and unverifiable accounts that are severely damaging my credit profile and overall financial well-being. I have already sent a formal dispute letter to TransUnion as part of my second round of disputes, and instead of correcting the information or removing the unverifiable items, they have continued reporting these harmful entries without any meaningful investigation. \n\nThere are two addresses on my report XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX that I have never lived at or used for any purpose. These addresses are completely incorrect and suggest a possible case of mixed or mistaken identity. Despite notifying TransUnion, they remain on my credit file. \n\nI also have multiple accounts showing late payments and charge-offs that are either extremely outdated or completely inaccurate. For example, a XXXX XXXX account ( opened on XX/XX/XXXX with a balance of {$460.00} ) is showing as a charge-off, even though I had attempted to work out a resolution with the creditor and was not notified of any formal charge-off. Another account from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX with a balance of {$270.00} ) is reflecting a late payment, but I was never properly billed or alerted I only found out after reviewing my credit report. \n\nThe most troubling part is the long list of student loan accounts from XXXX XXXX and XXXX, many of which were opened between XXXX and XXXX and have long since been closed with {$0.00} balances. These accounts still reflect late payments, even though they are far older than the XXXX reporting limit allowed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This includes several entries dating back as far as XXXX, which should have been removed years ago but are still being used against me. \n\nThere are also multiple Department of Education loans that are reported as charge-offs, all opened in XX/XX/XXXX. The balances range from a few XXXX to over {$40000.00}. These accounts should have been updated to reflect deferment or forbearance status due to the federal loan pause and other relief programs, but instead they are all being listed as charged-off debts. This is not only misleading, but also a misrepresentation of the actual loan status, especially for federal student loans that were paused during the pandemic. \n\nOn top of that, there are several collection accounts that I have never been notified about or validated such as those from XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. For example, XXXX XXXX has two separate collections ( opened in XX/XX/XXXX ) with different balances but no explanation of the origin of either debt. XXXX XXXX has reported the same account twice, with different balances and different open dates once in XX/XX/XXXX and again in XX/XX/XXXX which seems like duplicate reporting. \n\nFinally, I noticed multiple hard inquiries that I never authorized, including ones from XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX ), and XXXX  XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I did not apply for credit with any of these companies during those times. These inquiries were made without my consent or knowledge and have contributed to lowering my credit score unfairly.\n\nI have tried to resolve this directly with TransUnion by providing clear evidence and requesting reinvestigation. Unfortunately, they have failed to correct these errors or to provide me with any proof that these items are accurate or valid. Their continued failure to ensure accurate reporting is a violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). This inaccurate information is not only unfair its making it harder for me to qualify for housing, employment, and even insurance. \n\nI am asking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to intervene and hold TransUnion accountable. I want all unverifiable, inaccurate, outdated, or misleading items removed from my report immediately, and I want an updated credit report issued once that has been done. I am also asking that the unauthorized inquiries be deleted, and that all reporting be brought into full compliance with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-29T21:00:28.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"29405","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14948930","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-29T19:17:45.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing this complaint against TransUnion <em>because</em> my credit report contains a large number of inaccurate, outdated, and unverifiable accounts that are severely damaging my credit profile and overall financial well-being. I <em>have</em> already sent a formal <em>dispute</em> letter to TransUnion as part of my second round of <em>disputes</em>, and instead of <em>correcting</em> the information or removing the unverifiable items, they <em>have</em> continued reporting these harmful entries without any meaningful investigation."]},"sort":[12.195723,"14948930"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17419007","_score":11.974432,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint because Sallie Mae Bank is reporting multiple derogatory and inconsistent entries on my credit reports that appear inaccurate, unverifiable, incomplete, and potentially tied to loan-servicing errors or identity misuse. These discrepancies have resulted in significant harm to my credit standing, financial opportunities, and peace of mind. Despite multiple attempts to dispute these entries with the credit bureaus, Sallie Mae Bank has not provided the original documentation necessary to verify ownership, accuracy, or legitimacy of the reported information. Because the reporting remains inconsistent, confusing, and unsupported, I am asking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to assist in ensuring that Sallie Mae Bank meets its legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and supplies valid proof of the account informationor corrects or removes the derogatory entries if they can not be verified. \n\nThe issues with Sallie Mae Bank became apparent when I reviewed my credit reports and noticed that the same lenderSallie Maewas reporting several accounts with contradictory information. One account appeared as a charge-off or collection on one bureau, with late-payment histories that I do not recognize. Another Sallie Mae account appeared as Paid, with no derogatory information, suggesting that the account was either resolved or not delinquent. A third account showed severe delinquency, multiple late-payment notations, and a high past-due balance. These accounts did not align with each other or with the records I have. The presence of contradictory versions of what appears to be related or identical loan products raised immediate concerns because it indicated that the information being furnished by Sallie Mae Bank was not consistent or accurate. \n\nAdditionally, the dates reported by Sallie Mae Bank do not match across the credit bureaus. For example, an account may show that it was opened at a certain time on one bureau but reflects a different opening date on another bureau. The delinquency dates, charge-off dates, or closure dates also differ from one bureau to another. There are even instances where a Sallie Mae entry lists a last payment date but reports the actual payment amount as zero, which is contradictory and suggests an internal data mismatch. Reporting a payment date without a payment amount raises questions about whether the information was populated automatically or reported inaccurately during a system update or file transfer. \n\nThese inconsistencies are especially concerning because accurate reporting of student-loan information is crucial for many consumers who rely on credit reports when applying for homes, vehicles, jobs, rental housing, insurance, and other necessities. When the same lender appears to be reporting different facts to different credit bureaus, it indicates serious weaknesses in the lenders data integrity and raises concerns about whether Sallie Mae Bank maintains the proper documentation to support its reporting obligations. \n\nWhen I noticed these inconsistencies, I promptly filed disputes with the credit bureaus. In each dispute, I asked for verification of the accounts, clarification of the reported information, and copies of the documentation that Sallie Mae Bank relied upon to furnish the negative information. I requested that the bureaus contact Sallie Mae Bank and obtain original records, including signed loan agreements, promissory notes, repayment histories, delinquency records, and any notices that were allegedly sent to me. Despite these detailed requests, the credit bureaus responded with generic statements stating that the accounts were verified as accurate, without supplying any supporting documentation or explaining how the verification was conducted. \n\nThe FCRA requires a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information, but I do not believe that a reasonable or meaningful reinvestigation occurred. Instead, based on the short turnaround time and the lack of documentation provided, it appears that the bureaus relied entirely on automated verification through e-Oscar or similar systems. Automated verification does not satisfy the FCRA when the consumer raises specific, detailed concerns that require human review and examination of original documentation. It is impossible for Sallie Maes reporting to be simultaneously accurate and contradictory across different bureaus, unless the accounts themselves contain errors or Sallie Maes systems are misreporting information during data transmission. \n\nAnother troubling aspect of the derogatory Sallie Mae entries is that I did not receive proper notice or warning about any alleged delinquency, charge-off, or negative reporting at the time the negative activity supposedly occurred. Under federal law and standard loan-servicing practices, lenders are expected to send delinquency notices, billing statements, and communication regarding repayment options before reporting severe negative events such as charge-offs or 90-day late payments. Yet I do not recall receiving any such communications. If Sallie Mae claims that those notices were issued, then I request proof of these communications. Without evidence that the proper notices were sent, the derogatory reporting is incomplete and misleading. \n\nMoreover, the severity of the reported derogatory information suggests that if such events had truly occurred, there would be clear documentation such as collection letters, payment demands, or legal notices. I have none of these records, and the credit bureaus did not provide them during the dispute process. This raises the possibility that the reported delinquencies are based on internal data errors, system migrations, or inaccurate transfer of loan information rather than actual consumer behavior. \n\nIt is also unclear whether these accounts were affected by identity misuse. I filed an identity-theft report with the Federal Trade Commission because of other inconsistencies in my credit file, including unauthorized inquiries and accounts that appear unfamiliar. Because identity theft can affect student-loan accounts and related financial information, Sallie Mae Bank must provide proof that these loans, delinquencies, and derogatory behaviors were actually connected to me and not the result of fraudulent activity. Without documentation showing that I applied for or authorized the creation of the Sallie Mae accounts in question, or that I received communications about repayment or delinquency, the negative reporting can not be assumed to be legitimate. \n\nAnother concern is that Sallie Mae Bank may have sold, transferred, or reassigned certain loan accounts in the past, which can create reporting errors if the transfer was not documented or communicated properly. If Sallie Mae transferred the servicing rights or ownership of the loans, I request documentation of these transfers, including the full chain of assignment. Loan transfers without accurate data migration can lead to incorrect delinquency reporting, missing payment records, or misapplied transactions. These issues are common when loans are transferred between servicers or when older accounts are converted into new servicing platforms without proper quality control. \n\nThe derogatory reporting by Sallie Mae Bank has had significant consequences. Inaccurate late payments, charge-offs, or delinquent statuses negatively affect credit scores. These negative entries can result in higher interest rates, loan denials, reduced credit availability, and difficulty obtaining housing or employment. The financial harm and emotional distress caused by Sallie Maes inaccurate or unverifiable reporting can not be overstated. A lender must be held accountable for ensuring that the information it furnishes is complete, accurate, and supported by documented evidence. \n\nThe most critical part of a fair resolution involves producing the documentation that Sallie Mae Bank used to report the information in the first place. If Sallie Mae can not provide original promissory notes, signed loan applications, billing statements, delinquency notices, repayment histories, or transfer documentation, then the reporting can not be verified. Under the FCRA, unverifiable information must be deleted. \n\nAdditionally, Sallie Mae Bank must reconcile the inconsistencies across bureaus. It is not acceptable for the same lender to report different balances, different dates, different statuses, and different delinquency histories depending on the bureau. The information must be unified, accurate, and consistent if it is to remain on a consumers credit file. If Sallie Mae can not make the reporting consistent and accurate, then the entries should be removed. \n\nA fair and reasonable outcome also includes correcting or deleting any unauthorized or unverifiable inquiries associated with Sallie Mae Bank or its affiliates. If Sallie Mae accessed my credit file without authorization or if an inquiry was made in error, it must be removed. \n\nI am requesting that Sallie Mae Bank provide the following as part of a fair resolution : A full investigation into each account they are reporting. \n\nCopies of original loan documents, promissory notes, and applications. \n\nComplete payment histories and details regarding all alleged delinquencies. \n\nDocumentation showing all communications sent to me regarding repayment or delinquency. \n\nEvidence of any loan transfer, sale, or assignment involving Sallie Mae Bank. \n\nClear explanations for inconsistent reporting across the bureaus. \n\nRemoval of any information that can not be validated. \n\nPermanent suppression of any fraudulent or identity-theft-related information. \n\nRemoval of any unauthorized or unverifiable credit inquiries. \n\nThe inconsistencies, contradictions, missing documentation, and refusal to provide verification after multiple disputes demonstrate that Sallie Mae Banks reporting can not be trusted without further evidence. I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau compel Sallie Mae Bank to comply fully with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, provide the necessary documentation, and remove any derogatory entries that can not be supported with original, legitimate records.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-21T19:33:41.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"63033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17419007","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SLM CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-11-21T19:24:08.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Moreover, the severity of the reported derogatory information suggests that if such events had truly occurred, there would be clear documentation such as collection letters, <em>payment</em> demands, or legal notices. I <em>have</em> none of these records, and the credit bureaus did not provide them <em>during</em> the <em>dispute</em> process."]},"sort":[11.974432,"17419007"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17916442","_score":11.719974,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because the information being furnished and reported under MOHELA ( also appearing as MOHELAXXXX XXXX  on my credit reports contains significant inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and unverifiable data that have severely damaged my credit profile. After reviewing my credit reports, I noticed multiple MOHELA-related accounts with conflicting balances, inconsistent payment histories, and discrepancies that raise serious concerns about the accuracy of the reporting. I have attempted to dispute these accounts through the credit reporting agencies, and I also filed an official identity-theft report with the Federal Trade Commission XXXX Despite these steps, the derogatory MOHELA information continues to appear on my credit reports without any legitimate documentation or method of verification provided to me. Because of these failures and the ongoing harm the incorrect reporting has caused, I am requesting assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to compel MOHELA to provide full documentation or remove the unverifiable negative entries. \n\nThe first indication that something was wrong came when I noticed that MOHELA was reporting several accounts with balances and dates that did not align with any record I have. The MOHELA entries show balances that appear inflated compared to the original loan amounts, dates of last payment that do not seem accurate, and reported updates that do not match my understanding of my payment history or interactions with any servicer. In some cases, MOHELA lists a last payment date but shows a {$0.00} payment amount, which is contradictory and suggests an internal data error. Additionally, the reported account statuses appear inconsistent across multiple credit bureaus. This type of inconsistency is deeply troubling and strongly suggests that the information may not be accurate, may not have been transferred correctly from previous servicers, or may be tied to identity misuse.\n\nThese inconsistencies prompted me to initiate disputes with each of the major credit reporting agencies. In these disputes, I clearly stated that I believed the MOHELA information to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. I requested that the bureaus contact MOHELA to obtain proper documentation verifying the accuracy of the accounts, including original loan documents, payment histories, delinquency notices, servicing-transfer records, and communication logs. However, instead of receiving copies of these documents or any explanation of how the information was verified, I received generic responses from the bureaus stating that the accounts had been verified. No documentation was provided. No investigation results were shared. No explanation was provided regarding the method of verification. A generic verified response without documentation does not satisfy the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.\n\nBecause MOHELA handles student loans, it is common for these loans to have been serviced by multiple companies throughout their lifespan. If these loans were transferred between servicers, the transfer should have included complete and accurate records, including payment histories, repayment plan selections, deferment or forbearance records, and delinquency data. If MOHELA received incomplete or incorrect records during such a transfer, the information they furnished to the credit bureaus may be incorrect. However, since MOHELA has not provided any transfer records or original loan documents, I can not confirm whether the reporting is based on legitimate loan data or whether the negative information stems from servicing-transfer errors.\n\nPart of my concern also comes from the appearance of MOHELA accounts only on certain bureaus or appearing differently depending on which bureau I review. A legitimate loan servicer reporting accurate information normally reports the same information to all three major credit bureaus. The inconsistent reporting suggests that either MOHELA is not furnishing uniform information to all bureaus or that certain bureaus are receiving incomplete or incorrect files. This adds to my belief that the information is not being validated before submission or that MOHELAs data-furnishing process itself may be flawed.\n\nAnother major issue is that I do not recall receiving any delinquency notices or communication from MOHELA regarding missed payments or late payments that would justify the negative reporting. Under federal law and federal student-loan servicing guidelines, servicers must send multiple notices before reporting adverse information. These notices typically include updated billing statements, repayment-plan options, reminders, warnings, and offers to assist borrowers in avoiding delinquency. If MOHELA claims that I was delinquent, they should be able to provide copies of these notices and communication logs. I have not received any such documentation, nor have the bureaus provided it to me. Without proof that these notices were sent, the derogatory reporting is incomplete and misleading.\n\nAdditionally, because I filed a formal FTC Identity Theft Report, MOHELA is required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to either verify the account with proper documentation or block it from appearing on my report. Since MOHELA has not provided verification through original documentation, they should have removed the information. Instead, the negative accounts remain, suggesting noncompliance with identity-theft procedures and federal reporting standards.\n\nThe financial and emotional impact of this inaccurate MOHELA reporting has been significant. Incorrect student-loan reporting can dramatically lower credit scores, making it difficult to obtain loans, buy a home, rent an apartment, secure employment, or access competitive interest rates. It creates barriers to financial mobility and results in long-term consequences that could have been avoided if MOHELA and the credit bureaus had complied with federal law. Additionally, the stress of dealing with unverified derogatory student-loan reporting has caused ongoing emotional distress, confusion, and frustration.\n\nBecause the negative reporting remains despite my disputes and despite the identity-theft report I filed, I have reason to believe that the credit bureaus did not conduct a proper reinvestigation and instead relied on automated systems such as XXXX  Automated reinvestigations often result in blanket verified responses that lack human oversight. This is unacceptable when dealing with complex federal student-loan accounts, which require detailed documentation and manual review. \n\nGiven all these issues, I am requesting CFPB assistance to compel MOHELA to comply with federal law by providing full documentation or removing unverifiable information. The following steps outline what a fair and lawful resolution would include : MOHELA must provide original loan documentation, including promissory notes, disbursement dates, repayment agreements, and any signed documents confirming the origin of the account. \n\nMOHELA must provide complete payment histories that accurately show all payments received, dates of payments, and how those payments were applied. \n\nMOHELA must provide delinquency documentation, including any notices they claim were sent prior to reporting negative information. \n\nMOHELA must provide servicing-transfer records, including all files it received from prior servicers and any files transferred out. \n\nMOHELA must provide communication logs, including emails, letters, phone attempts, and notices purportedly sent. \n\nThe credit bureaus must provide the full method of verification, and disclose whether they received actual documentation from MOHELA. \n\nAny unverifiable, incomplete, or inconsistent information must be permanently deleted from all credit bureaus. \n\nAny information impacted by identity theft must be blocked, in accordance with my FTC report. \n\nAny unauthorized or unverifiable hard inquiries must be removed immediately. \n\nMOHELA must correct all inconsistencies between bureaus and ensure accurate, uniform reporting. \n\nUpdated credit reports must be sent to all entities that accessed my credit in the past XXXX months. \n\nNo unverifiable information should be reinserted unless MOHELA and the bureaus fully comply with federal reinsertion laws. \n\nMOHELA must review and correct its internal data-furnishing practices to prevent future inaccuracies. \n\nThe inaccurate MOHELA information is causing ongoing, unnecessary harm. I have followed all required consumer steps by disputing the information and filing an identity-theft report. The companies involved have not provided documentation, transparency, or lawful verification. Therefore, the only fair resolution is for MOHELA and the credit bureaus to either provide documented proof of the information or permanently delete it.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-21T20:06:52.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"63033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17916442","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MOHELA","date_received":"2025-11-21T19:55:54.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This type of inconsistency is deeply <em>troubling</em> and strongly suggests that the information may not be accurate, may not <em>have</em> been transferred <em>correctly</em> from previous servicers, or may be tied to identity misuse.\n\nThese inconsistencies prompted me to initiate <em>disputes</em> with each of the major credit reporting agencies. In these <em>disputes</em>, I clearly stated that I believed the MOHELA information to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable."]},"sort":[11.719974,"17916442"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14860695","_score":11.627747,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB Officer, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Experian for their ongoing failure to maintain accurate and verifiable information in my credit file. I have made multiple good faith efforts to dispute incorrect data directly with Experian, but they have refused to properly investigate or remove the inaccurate and harmful information. As a result, Ive suffered significant financial hardship, emotional stress, and damage to my personal reputation.\n\nMy credit report with Experian lists an address, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AZ XXXX, which I have never lived at nor have any association with. I have requested its removal due to the possibility of mixed files or identity confusion, yet Experian continues to keep it on my record despite providing no verification.\n\nIn addition to this, there are several accounts being inaccurately reported. The XXXX XXXX account ( XXXX ), opened on XX/XX/XXXX, is showing a late payment, though I was never properly notified of the due amount or billing status. Similarly, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), opened on XX/XX/XXXX, is reporting a late payment without having issued me any payment reminder or communication. I have attempted to resolve both of these accounts directly, but Experian has not taken corrective action.\n\nMore severe are the charge-offs and outdated accounts. My XXXX  XXXX account ( XXXX ), opened in XXXX, was charged off during a time when I was facing serious medical and financial hardship. I sought assistance from the lender but received none. XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( XXXX ), opened in XXXX, includes late payments that occurred while I was actively serving under XXXX XXXX, and despite submitting relevant SCRA documents, Experian refused to make any corrections. \n\nAnother troubling entry is my XXXX account ( XXXX ), opened in XX/XX/XXXX, which was also charged off without any verification of the balance or billing. I repeatedly asked Experian for proper documentation, which they failed to provide. My XXXX XXXX account, opened in XXXX, is showing as charged off even though the balance is {$0.00}. This misleading reporting is both harmful and inaccurate. Similarly, the XXXX account from XXXX and XXXX XXXX account from XXXX both show charge-offs, even though they were resolved, and the balances reflect {$0.00}. Experian has failed to update their status or remove them from my report. \n\nLastly, there is a bankruptcy being reported from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in XXXX, OH ( Reference # : XXXX ), which appears to be outdated and potentially inaccurate. I have requested verification, and Experian has not confirmed it with court documentation.\n\nAll of this information violates key provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including their failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer data under 1681e ( b ), their refusal to conduct a proper reinvestigation under 1681i, and failure of furnishers to update or remove inaccurate information under 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nI have suffered real damage because of these inaccuracies. I have been denied access to credit, forced to pay higher interest rates, and have experienced constant anxiety due to the negative impact on my financial life. I am doing everything I can to rebuild my credit and act responsibly, but Experians negligence continues to undermine my efforts.\n\nI am requesting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to launch an investigation into Experians handling of these disputes and reporting practices, and to take appropriate action to ensure these inaccurate entries are removed or properly corrected.\n\nThank you for taking the time to review my complaint. I hope that with your help, I can finally obtain a fair and accurate credit file.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-24T17:18:36.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"85301","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14860695","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-24T17:14:57.000Z","state":"AZ","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":["Similarly, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), opened on XX/XX/XXXX, is reporting a late <em>payment</em> without <em>having</em> <em>issued</em> me any <em>payment</em> reminder or communication. I <em>have</em> attempted to resolve both of these accounts directly, but Experian has not taken corrective action.\n\nMore severe are the charge-offs and outdated accounts. My XXXX  XXXX account ( XXXX ), opened in XXXX, was charged off <em>during</em> a time when I was facing serious medical and financial hardship."]},"sort":[11.627747,"14860695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21477092","_score":11.466166,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Rebuttal to Onity Response / Incomplete and Nonresponsive Servicing Investigation To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I submit this rebuttal regarding Onity Mortgage XXXX response concerning Account No. XXXX and the property located at, XXXX, TX XXXX. \n\nOnitys response remains incomplete and nonresponsive. This is not just a complaint about one incorrect phone statement. It is a record-integrity problem, a successor-in-interest handling problem, a payment-status problem, a foreclosure-expense transparency problem, and a modification-document problem. \n\nOnity admits that on XX/XX/XXXX its representative incorrectly advised that the final modification agreement had not yet been generated, even though Onity claims that agreement had already been generated and mailed on XX/XX/XXXX. That admitted misinformation goes directly to the loss-mitigation process and may have interfered with timely execution and return of the agreement. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35, inaccurate information regarding loss mitigation, foreclosure, or other servicing issues is grounds for error resolution. \n\nOnity also states that the modification was denied on XX/XX/XXXX, then later reversed, and then reissued. Yet the modification materials state that the first modified payment would begin on XX/XX/XXXX, while Onity simultaneously demanded XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX trial payments. Those positions do not reconcile. Either the account had already moved into permanent modification status or it had not. Onitys explanation leaves the payment status unclear and prevents meaningful review of whether payments were accurately categorized, applied, and credited. \n\nThe successor-in-interest handling is equally troubling. Onitys XX/XX/XXXX successor packet confirms XXXX as a successor in interest and states that she is not personally liable unless she chooses to assume liability. However, the same packet states that the loan modification and assumption review/approval will be completed simultaneously and that if the modification is accepted she will be required to assume liability. A confirmed successor in interest must be treated as a borrower for Regulation X servicing protections. Onitys wording improperly blurs the line between borrower-status protections and personal assumption liability and appears to pressure assumption as a condition of meaningful relief. \n\nOnitys own response then confirms that XXXX  was not added as a confirmed successor until XX/XX/XXXX, that XXXX name was not updated until XX/XX/XXXX, and that XXXX was only removed after an internal review found documentation dated XX/XX/XXXX authorizing his release as a successor in interest. That means Onity had relevant successor-related documentation in its own file yet still generated and circulated modification documents using outdated or disputed party information. \n\nThe fee issue remains one of the strongest indicators that Onitys response is incomplete. The modification summary says, in plain language, NO FEES. Yet the agreement separately states that recording fees, title examination fees, and attorneys fees may be charged to the borrower, and also states that interest, costs, expenses, fees, escrow advances, and other unpaid amounts may be added to the new balance. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX statement makes this more serious. That statement states that the loan had been referred to an attorney to start foreclosure proceedings and directs that, before remitting payment, the borrower MUST contact the attorney for the full reinstatement amount because the amount shown may have changed. The same statement shows a large Assessed Expenses balance, along with Past Due Payments and additional unpaid late charges, returned-item charges, and shortages. It also appears to reference at least a BPO cost and an inspection fee. I am not asserting, from the face of that statement alone, that the entire assessed-expense amount is attorneys fees. I am asserting that Onity was carrying a large foreclosure-related expense bucket without a clear itemization while foreclosure counsel was already involved and while the modification file was still disputed and being reworked. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35, a fee or charge without a reasonable basis is a covered servicing error. \n\nThe balloon terms are also internally contradictory. The packet refers to a balloon payment of {$41000.00}, elsewhere refers to {$55000.00}, and elsewhere states a total balloon obligation of {$96000.00}. Those are materially different obligations. A borrower should not be expected to sign a modification package that presents multiple inconsistent balloon amounts while also warning that failure to pay the balloon could result in foreclosure. \n\nThe agreement further contains broad lender-protective errors and omissions language allowing Onity, at its option, to void the agreement, demand corrective documents, and revert the loan to prior terms if it later claims there was an error or omission. In a file where Onity already admits misinformation, reversed decisions, and later corrections to party records, that language attempts to shift the practical risk of Onitys own record problems back onto us. \n\nOnitys materials also do not resolve the foreclosure-timing issue. The packet says foreclosure proceedings will be stopped if applicable once the modification is complete. That does not answer what happened while the application was under review, while the denial was being challenged, while the denial was being reversed, and while new documents were being reissued. Because the file shows a reversed denial and the XX/XX/XXXX statement shows attorney referral for foreclosure activity, a full foreclosure timeline is necessary. \n\nAccordingly, we demand the following relief : 1. Withdraw the current modification package and issue a corrected package with one consistent set of parties, one consistent payment timeline, one consistent balloon figure, and no contradictory NO FEES versus borrower-paid-fees language. \n\n2. Remove or expressly agree not to enforce any clause that allows Onity to void the agreement, revert to prior terms, require corrective documentation under threat of reversal, or shift back onto us the costs and consequences of Onitys own errors, rework, successor-record issues, denials, reversals, or reissued documents. \n\n3. Confirm in writing that no attorneys fees, foreclosure counsel fees, BPO charges, inspection fees, title charges, publication/posting costs, corporate advances, or other expenses generated by Onitys errors, rework, or defective records will be assessed, capitalized, collected, or preserved for future collection against us. \n\n4. Provide a complete life-of-loan payment history, including suspense and unapplied-funds history. \n\n5. Provide a full assessed-expense ledger showing every dollar by date, vendor, service, invoice amount, and contractual or legal authority, including all attorney/counsel fees, BPO charges, inspection fees, title charges, posting/publication charges, and corporate advances. \n\n6. Provide the XX/XX/XXXX mailing proof and image of the final modification package, along with all XX/XX/XXXX call logs, recordings, and agent notes. \n\n7. Provide all successor-in-interest documents, intake dates, indexing dates, and internal workflow notes showing when each party was added, removed, or corrected. \n\n8. Provide the foreclosure referral date, counsel referral date, every reinstatement quote, every notice or posting date, and every instruction sent to foreclosure counsel during review, denial, reversal, and reissuance. \n\n9. Confirm whether any derogatory credit reporting was furnished during the period of incorrect guidance, denial, reversal, disputed successor records, or disputed charges, and correct any inaccurate reporting tied to those issues. \n\nWe reject any clause, rider, summary, modification term, or servicing position that purports to shift onto us the costs, risks, consequences, or cleanup burden created by Onitys own servicing errors, successor-record failures, contradictory modification terms, denial reversal, foreclosure-counsel referral activity, reissued documents, or unexplained assessed expenses. \n\nOnitys conduct has forced us to devote extraordinary time and resources to reviewing contradictory packets, tracing successor-status errors, challenging unsupported charges, and preventing additional harm. We reserve all rights to seek reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket expenses, correction of any derogatory credit reporting, waiver and reversal of all disputed charges, actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution where available, and any additional remedies permitted by law. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as consent to pay or capitalize any charge caused by Onitys errors, its counsels activity, or its defective records. \n\nPlease treat this response as a formal request for continued review and a supplemental response supported by actual records rather than general assurances. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T10:52:15.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"76039","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21477092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2026-04-22T10:23:27.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Confirm whether any derogatory credit reporting was furnished <em>during</em> the period of incorrect guidance, denial, reversal, <em>disputed</em> successor records, or <em>disputed</em> charges, and <em>correct</em> any inaccurate reporting tied to those <em>issues</em>."],"sub_issue":["Trying to communicate with the company to fix an <em>issue</em> related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"]},"sort":[11.466166,"21477092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5296092","_score":11.156465,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I have had Sallie Mae student loans since XXXX. I have paid Sallie Mae for 12 consecutive years, starting while I was in XXXX college. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, shortly after the purchase of my first home ( in XX/XX/XXXX ), Sallie Mae doubled my minimum payment from $ XXXX monthly to $ XXXX monthly without any formal notice. Soon after this, I started to struggle making payments. In XX/XX/XXXX, I had trouble making my payment but made the payment on XX/XX/XXXX ( within the 30-60 day past due window, which is not reported as delinquent ). I then called Sallie Mae on XX/XX/XXXX to discuss payment options as I was struggling to make the payments on time. When I called on XX/XX/XXXX, I was placed into a \" 3 month pay forbearance program '' where it required auto debit payments. I had set the payment dates in advance and could not change the payment dates. The first payment in late XX/XX/XXXX came out of my bank account successfully. When the 2nd payment came due ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I had the available funds in my bank account ( XXXX Checking Account ) and checked both of my online accounts at XXXX and Sallie Mae for 3 consecutive business days to ensure the payment was cleared, which showed that all was paid and my account was current. My next payment was not until 2-weeks later ( XX/XX/XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I got my Sallie Mae billing statement showing that I was {$2400.00} past due. I immediately called Sallie Mae on XX/XX/XXXX and was told my payment failed on XX/XX/XXXX despite my bank account and Sallie Mae initially showing it was paid. When I called Sallie Mae on XX/XX/XXXX, the representative I spoke with suggested I be put on another \" 3-month payment forbearance plan '' and was told that my credit report and account would not be shown as delinquent as long as I made those following 3 payments without issue, which I completed successfully ; however, this program did not allow me to pick my payment dates but the same date each month for 3 months. In XX/XX/XXXX, while preparing to purchase a new home, I noticed 16 late payments from Sallie Mae on my credit report from XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX with some payments reporting as much as 90+ days late. Again, I immediately called Sallie Mae and expressed my concern that I have never been 90 days late in paying them and that this was inaccurate. The representative told me that I could file a credit dispute but that 1. the dispute center does not have a phone number and 2. I would need to mail all my documents in to a XXXX XXXX to be reviewed within 30 days. I mailed all the supporting documentation on XX/XX/XXXX ( I tracked the envelope via certified mail and my records show that it was received by Sallie Mae on XX/XX/XXXX ). Within this supporting documentation, I included my bank statements from XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Sallie Mae statements from XX/XX/XXXX to show that {$0.00} past due on every statement after I called Sallie Mae on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX credit report, and wrote a letter detailing my credit dispute. I received a response from Sallie Mae in XX/XX/XXXX stating that the credit reporting was investigated and accurate per FCRA guidelines. It requested that I send in more information if I had \" not sent, '' which included -- Copy of credit report, bank statements, canceled checks, bank and account information, etc, which I had already sent in for my initial dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. I called Sallie Mae shortly after this response in early XX/XX/XXXX and asked why I had to include this information again and what I needed to include to ensure that my credit report was corrected. The representative told me that all of the information I mailed was \" scanned incorrectly '' and had \" blank pages. '' The only pages that were scanned correctly were my Sallie Mae statements, not my bank statements or credit report. I was provided a link to send these documents again and submitted them on XX/XX/XXXX and was told to call back to check in on the status of my dispute. I called back on XX/XX/XXXX and was told I needed 1 more missing piece in my dispute which was a phone call recording from XX/XX/XXXX, when I initially called and was told that my account would not be reported as delinquent. The representative who informed me of this call recording told me that he placed a request to his supervisor and leadership in collections via email to have the call recording reviewed. He then told me to call back later that afternoon to check the status. I called back that afternoon around XXXX, as told by the representative, and was told that the request was still in process and to call back on Monday XX/XX/XXXX. I called again on Monday XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with a supervisor at Sallie Mae named XXXX who told me that they were not going to review the call as it was \" too old '' and that the credit reporting was accurate, despite them not reviewing the information I submitted 3 different ways and not reviewing the call from XX/XX/XXXX. The call was disconnected so I then called Sallie Mae back again on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with another representative for 2 hours who reported to me that she was \" looking for the call '' from XX/XX/XXXX. She stated that she could see the call logged from XX/XX/XXXX but that she could not access it because the representative who completed the call was no longer employed at Sallie Mae. In reaction to this, I stated to the representative that because all of my documents were not properly scanned and the call was not reviewed that a proper FCRA investigation could not have been completed. She stated that the call was essentially moot because of when I called and assumed what was said on the call without having the ability to listen to it. It was then uncovered that on XX/XX/XXXX, when I received my statement from Sallie Mae that the payments for 4 months ( XX/XX/XXXX ) were reported as late to the credit reporting companies. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I did not know that there was an issue ( as I stated above ) because On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX both the Sallie Mae phone application and my bank account showed payment as \" Paid. '' If I had known on the XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX that there was an issue I could have made an additional payment to at minimum avoid 4 out of the 16 late payments based on the timeline. Sallie Mae allowed me to get to 90 days late on an amount they refuse to tell me before I had the opportunity resolve by not saying anything from XX/XX/XXXX to when I received my statement on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAs of the evening of XX/XX/XXXX, after a 2-hour phone call with a Sallie Mae representative , my dispute has not been fully investigated. Each time I call Sallie Mae I receive different information regarding my account during these timeframes and am told different steps to take. Given that Sallie Mae does not allow me to consolidate my loans, I have 16 late payments on my credit report that I strongly believe are inaccurate reports from ONE incident. They have yet to provide me a clear explanation as to why these reports can not be rectified and refuse to review the call from XX/XX/XXXX which I was told was a missing piece in my dispute. They also have not reviewed the documents I sent them on 2 different occasions in 3 different fashions ( via mail, via Sallie Mae portal, and via upload link Sallie Mae sent me ). They continue to tell me that the dispute is accurate and complete although it is NOT complete given they have not reviewed the information I have provided or the phone call that was made on XX/XX/XXXX. I was told on XX/XX/XXXX that I could reach out to \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' if I wanted to pursue further action, while still not reviewing my dispute completely. I believe that the unfair credit reporting is due to Sallie Mae 's system failures and errors. They have been preaching FCRA although this does not cover system technical issues, which I feel plays a role in my situation, nor does it bar them from changing their inaccurate reporting. As a result of this, my credit has 16 late payments on it, all from Sallie Mae, which is severely impacting my financial ability to obtain a mortgage or possibly refinance my loans with a different institution. In my opinion, Sallie Mae is inaccurately reporting on their customer 's credit reports, preventing them from going elsewhere to pay their student loans. It is predatory. It is unfair. It is corrupt. I have spent hours on the phone with representatives throughout the past few weeks, and throughout my lifetime with Sallie Mae, and a problem is never resolved or explained thoroughly. I plan to reach out to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and reiterate my dispute ; however, I have immense distrust that anything will be resolved. For these reasons, I am reporting to CFPB in hope for answers and clarity. \n\nAdditional supporting documentation and information can be provided at request.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-08T06:59:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"015XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5296092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SLM CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-03-08T00:49:12.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I did not know that there was an <em>issue</em> ( as I stated above ) <em>because</em> On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX both the Sallie Mae phone application and my bank account showed <em>payment</em> as \" Paid. '' If I had known on the XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX that there was an <em>issue</em> I could <em>have</em> made an additional <em>payment</em> to at minimum avoid 4 out of the 16 late <em>payments</em> based on the timeline."]},"sort":[11.156465,"5296092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8346885","_score":11.131293,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2024, I initiated a dispute through the online app for Chime XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of which I am a cardholder. The amount in dispute was made in good faith by me the consumer and I followed the Fair Credit Billing Act and Chime 's procedures for my matter to be considered. Chime, whom I at one point held in high esteem, systematically exposed inadequacy, flagrant disregard for federal law, abhorrent customer service and finally provided no solution to their dishonesty and lackluster electronic system procedures. I digress. The amount in dispute totals {$950.00}. The transaction amount put my account into a negative \" owing '' balance ( somewhere around XXXX dollars ). I thought this was odd, as I believed that the amount in dispute would be held from a formal debit against me, albeit a reduction in available credit was in order, a collectable debit against my account was instituted instead. I was provided with no recourse other than to wait for the passing of \" up to 90 days '' for the dispute to be investigated. Allow me to dive into the even more troubling issues that unfolded. I have both a Checking and a Credit Card account. I have my wages deposited into the Checking which is distinctly separate from the Credit Account. Since the day of the dispute, Chime has collected each and every deposit I have had made into my Checking Account and transferred them without any authorization to the Credit Account to satisfy this negative balance. So the visual of this plays out like this : Money enters Checking, Automatic Transfer to Credit Account, Amount of TransfXXXX is not quite sufficient to cover total amount in the negative, I am left with XXXX balance in Checking account and yet still ( although declining! ) negative balance in Credit Account. \nWhat did I do about it? I called Chime, 7 times to be exact. I called on the XXXX of XXXX, the XXXX, the XXXX, the XXXX, the XXXX and XXXX. Each time I called I ended up on the phone with first XXXX. A customer service agent whom after I declare my issue promptly transfers me to : XXXX. A supervisor who promising me they will escalate the issue tells me that they can not do anything further that this is an issue the : XXXX. Dispute agent handles whom quite frankly tells me the exact same thing they have on a teleprompter : disputes take 90 days ... so on an so forth. Fearing no resolution to offer, I am promptly transferred back to XXXX. A customer service agent who at this point has completely inverted and jumbled my issue. Akin to the '' telephone game '' my initial question has morphed into a request for a release of Authorization hold on a distinctly separate transaction which I AM NOT DISPUTING and sends me back to : XXXX. A supervisor who begins the call with the complete wrong issue. And so it goes... \nChime is collecting on a purchase I have in dispute, defiantly ignoring that payment of such amount is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with XXXX. \nFurthermore Chime is also practicing Unfair Trade. When applying all Tests set forth by the Federal Trade Commission Act, I have been victimized on another issue. Chime offers customers a \" temporary credit '' for active disputes. This is to say they replace the funds that you have in dispute for your use while they investigate. These are temporary because if you lose the dispute, they will recoup those funds. According to Chime 's website, the email a representative sent me and of course the real world result, Chime does not provided a temporary credit to Credit Accounts, citing Regulation Z as their foothold. Instead they offer a statement credit to be applied on the next billing cycle. \n\nI rebuke this understanding and explanation. On each and every Credit Builder Card Statement that I receive directly from Chime each and every month the following statement is made on the notice : Error Resolution Procedures In case of errors or questions about your electronic transactions, call XXXX, write to Chime Member Services, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX, or email us at XXXX as soon as you can, if you think your statement or receipt is wrong or if you need more information about a transfer listed on the statement or receipt. \nWe must hear from you no later than 60 days after we sent the XXXX statement on which the problem or error appeared. \nXXXX. Tell us your name and account number ( if any ). \nXXXX. Describe the error or the transfer you are unsure about, and explain as clearly as you can why you believe it is an error or why you need more information. \nXXXX. Tell us the dollar amount of the suspected error. \nWe will investigate your complaint and will correct any error promptly. \nIf we take more than 10 business days to do this, we will credit your account for the amount you think is in error, so that you will have the use of the money during the time it takes us to complete our investigation. \n\nAccording to the statement above, I should have received a credit for the amount in error and have had the use of said funds while Chime completes their investigation. ( WE are well past 10 days ). \nInstead of honoring their practices/statements/commitements and the law, I have been made a fool to them. I have had my accounts placed in the negative and incoming deposits garnished by Chime leaving me completely broke. And the most endearing part is the customer service team that has consistently offered the following assistance : Thanks for Chiming in! That's all I have. Please reach out to me with any questions. Thank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-14T10:19:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"34232","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8346885","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2024-02-14T09:11:01.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chime is collecting on a purchase I <em>have</em> in <em>dispute</em>, defiantly ignoring that <em>payment</em> of such amount is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with XXXX. \nFurthermore Chime is also practicing Unfair Trade. When applying all Tests set forth by the Federal Trade Commission Act, I <em>have</em> been victimized on another <em>issue</em>. Chime offers customers a \" temporary credit '' for active <em>disputes</em>. This is to say they replace the funds that you <em>have</em> in <em>dispute</em> for your use while they investigate."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[11.131293,"8346885"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17753775","_score":11.102443,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Beginning around 3032 days past due, I attempted multiple times to make my XXXX payment, but every payment channel blocked me. In addition, during the last week of XXXX, I again attempted to make my XXXX payment before the 60-day mark. I was sick with a XXXX XXXX  and was not able to even pick up the phone throughout XXXX. Despite being ill, I still attempted to pay through the automated phone system, the online portal, and the guest pay function and all of them continued to fail before XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis shows that I made repeated, good-faith efforts to cure the delinquency before 60 days, and that it was the servicers system failuresnot my actionsthat prevented payment. \nAfter failed attempts I emailed XXXX customer care team around XX/XX/XXXX XXXX am explain the issues. I did not receive a response until XX/XX/XXXX. There were contact information that was inaccurate and other reps from XXXX expressed I was told misleading information. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX  emailed me in response to my email ( the gist ) After 32 days, the portal and guest pay would no longer work therefore I could not make my payment.I could call in to make a payment with a representative.I could mail a payment or use wire transfer etc.There was no mention of a 60-day restriction or any FHA rule prohibiting them from accepting one past-due payment. \n\nTherefore, I followed their written instructions exactly. I called in as as soon a a got their email. The issue is that as the system was still not letting me bypass with my loan number. I have to find a way to block my number from being recognized and then request a call back from a rep. When a rep called back after XXXX hours of waiting I explained the issue to her. \nAfter calling, the XXXX representative told me : She can take XXXX but then put me on hold and proceeded to say she could not accept my XXXX payment unless I paid XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX all together.She insisted she could not take a one-month payment. She attempted to push a repayment plan of {$4100.00} per month for four months, which does not reflect what I owe. I told her she can not include any late fees or XXXX. My mortgage is on XXXX for now until XXXX. Even so, she refused my XXXX payment and said you could've have mailed in your payment. Which to me doesn't make since because they would've sent it back. \n\nShe placed me on hold multiple times, when she returned she said \" XXXX XXXX I she escalated the the call for a supervisor.Your holding up the line with other callers ; Thank You for calling XXXX XXXX '' and then disconnected without resolving anything. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with a representative who was very transparent and acknowledged several inaccuracies in the written email XXXX XXXX sent me. She confirmed that the email did not correctly explain my payment options, and she openly stated that the company had been experiencing issues with their automated phone system, which matched the problems I encountered. \n\nDuring this call, she told me she had spoken with the collections department and confirmed that collections would be able to accept my XXXX payment. She said she would stay on the line with me to resolve the XXXX payment through collections and would assist me afterward with arranging the XXXX payment. However, after placing me on hold, the call disconnected and she never called back, despite having my number. \n\nThis same representative was also the first person to tell me that FHA supposedly has a new guideline that servicers can not accept a single-month payment once the loan reaches or approaches 60 days delinquent. I immediately asked her where this new FHA rule was documented, why I was never notified, and why it was not included in the XX/XX/XXXX email. She was unable to provide any written proof, documentation, or citation and could not explain why this information was withheld. I also explained to her that I only reached 60 days because their systems blocked me from paying before then. She verbally acknowledged my concern but offered no resolution and provided no follow-up. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX XXXX again after the previous call dropped to try to resolve my XXXX payment. I was first routed to a representative in the wrong department, who could not assist me and spent time asking questions that did not address my issue. I asked her to transfer me to Collections. Once I reached Collections, I explained everything that had been happening, including the blocked payment attempts and the conflicting information I had been given. The Collections representative told me they could not accept my XXXX payment due to this FHA regulation. I expressed my confusion and frustration, because different employees had told me narratives about whether Collections could accept the payment. I asked why I was receiving inconsistent information and why a system failure was preventing me from making a legitimate payment before 60 days. The representative admitted that their phone system had been acting up, which matched the issues I had experienced. \n\nI asked to speak with a supervisor. The Collections representative told me he was chatting with his supervisor, and that the supervisor could call me back on XX/XX/XXXX between XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX I explained that I am a teacher and can not take personal calls at that time, and asked if the supervisor could speak to me while I was already on the line. He then told me that if he attempted to take my payment, the system might kick it back, I told him I was willing to accept that risk I simply wanted to make my payment but he still refused to take it and then stated he could get in trouble for processing it. Therefore, why say something in that manner. I asked him to reach out to the representative I had spoken to earlier who said that Collections would be able to accept my XXXX payment, and he told me she was busy helping other customers and he could not get her. When I asked again to be connected to a supervisor, he placed me on hold, and the call disconnected. Instead of reconnecting me, it immediately went to a survey. I never received a callback from Collections or from a supervisor. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I finally received a callback from a supervisor. I explained the entire situation to him, including the repeated system failures, the conflicting information from representatives, my attempts to pay before 60 days, and what I was prepared to pay. I clearly stated that I could make my XXXX payment immediately and my XXXX payment on XX/XX/XXXX. The supervisor placed me on hold, and when he returned, he incorrectly stated that he could take my XXXX and XXXX right now, and that I could then pay XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I corrected him and clarified again that I was stated to him I said I will to pay XXXX now and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. He then reversed his position and said that he could not take only the XXXX payment. \n\nWhen I asked why I was being refused again, he mentioned the FHA regulation, I stated I needed to see it in writing. I explained that he was the one referencing an FHA rule and that, as the supervisor, he should be able to provide the written rule, documentation, or official dispute of policy. He then claimed that he emailed his email servicer for clarification but could not explain what department that was, why they needed to be contacted, or why he could not provide the regulation himself. I stated that as consumers we need to be fully aware of this FHA regulation since they are the only ones stating this... he still could not produce any documentation when asked. \nHe then suggested that I could have requested a video chat appointment sooner to resolve the payment. I explained that the option he referenced is only for loss mitigation or for special servicing cases, not for making routine mortgage paymentsand that those appointments take several days to schedule. I reiterated that all I wanted was to make my payment. He stated that my only options were to enter a repayment plan, pursue loss mitigation he will schedule it or pay XXXX and XXXX together immediately. When I asked to escalate to another supervisor or department, he said no one else was available. \n\nDuring the call, his tone became noticeably snarly. He repeated that I had no other options despite my attempts before the 60-day mark and despite their system failures. He also indicated that I can dispute the 60 day with the credit bureau in a condescending tone. Ultimately, the supervisor abruptly disconnected the call. This was yet another instance of the servicer ending the call without resolution, further preventing me from making my payment. \n\nI also want to clearly document the repeated failures of the automated phone payment system, which is the primary method I have always used to make my monthly payments. Normally, when I call the automated system, it correctly identifies my phone number, confirms that the number is associated with my property address, gives the standard disclaimer, and then allows me to press 1 to make a payment. From there, it typically prompts me to enter my loan number, asks me to confirm my ZIP code, and then allows me to select my payment method usually using the last four digits of my bank account already on file. This has always been my regular and successful method of payment. However, beginning in late XXXX and continuing into early XXXX, the automated system stopped functioning properly. After confirming my phone number and property address, the system would ask me to enter my loan number but instead of proceeding to the ZIP code confirmation, it repeatedly stated that there was no account associated with that loan number. This is incorrect, as I verified the loan number multiple times and have used the same number for every prior payment. The system failure prevented me from accessing the payment menu at all. On one attempt around XX/XX/XXXX, the automated system gave an additional error by stating that a payment is already scheduled for this account, even though no such payment existed. This conflicting message further demonstrates that the automated phone system was malfunctioning, and that my account was being inaccurately processed by their system. These failures are a primary reason I could not make my XXXX payment despite attempting before the 60-day mark","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-04T19:09:28.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"60643","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17753775","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Data Mortgage Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-04T17:38:16.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She confirmed that the email did not <em>correctly</em> explain my <em>payment</em> options, and she openly stated that the company had been experiencing <em>issues</em> with their automated phone system, which matched the problems I encountered. \n\n<em>During</em> this call, she told me she had spoken with the collections department and confirmed that collections would be able to accept my XXXX <em>payment</em>."],"issue":["<em>Trouble</em> <em>during</em> <em>payment</em> process"],"sub_issue":["Trying to communicate with the company to fix an <em>issue</em> while managing or servicing your loan"]},"sort":[11.102443,"17753775"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22083328","_score":11.085175,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"The company ( Wells Fargo ) responses are total XXXX!! They are not addressing the issues of their mismanagement of my account. There are 2 significant errors that lead to this entire situation and they are 100 % rsponsible for those errors, MISAPPROPRIATION OF MY PROPERLY SUBMITTED P & I FUNDS and A FRAUDULENTLY SUBMITTED COURT FILING.\n\n1 ) They redirected one of the payments I made for the monthly P & I to a third party company who had no business or rights to receive those funds. This created a situation where every payment I made after that transaction was \" late '' and they charged me late fees for it for 3 years, while I disputed the transaction. That payment was NOT DUE to the 3rd party becasue they did NOT OWN the property during this time and my funds were illegally sent to them. Wells Fargo redirected my timely payment from XX/XX/XXXX. The payment was alledgedly owed for XX/XX/XXXX, but the 3rd party transferred ownership to Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, so they clearly did not own the property nor have any right to any sort of payment. There is a purchase contract that proves this as well as Wells Fargo 's Billing statement from XX/XX/XXXX that also confirms the ownership transfer. Wells Fargo misappropriated my properly submitted P & I funds to a Non-Associated 3rd party wihich, in my humble opinion, is THEFT.\n\n2 ) Wells Fargo began charging me for a FORCED Home Owners Insurance Policy in XX/XX/XXXX. This was 100 % UNNECESSARY, as I had full and complete coverage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for 100 % of the time in question. I proved this to Wells Fargo with the assistance of XXXX XXXX and there is NO DOUBT that I was properly insured for the time period in question. I have emails from Wells Fargo CONFIRMING my XXXX XXXX insurance, but Wells Fargo inappropriately used this false billing to \" manufacture '' some sort of billing shortage, as they took my monthly P & I payments, which I made 100 % ON TIME, and paid this bogus and totally unnecessary forced insurance policy premiums for 9 months.\n\nThese 2 noted factors are 100 % accurate and easily provable using Wells Fargo 's own billing statements. I have pointed this out to them numerous times and they refuse to acknowledge the truth. Their Office of Executive Management, who is reviewing all this, is either corruprt or just plain stupid. Anyone with 1 oz. of common sense can see that they are 100 % wrong in these 2 key issues.\n\n3 ) This is probably the most aggregious action that Wells Fargo has taken. They used these 2 totally false scenarios, noted above, to file a FALSE FORECLOSURE on my property. The \" evidence '' they have submitted to the 53rd District Court for this foreclosure is 100 % false and a complete and total fabrication of the actual facts. THIS IS A FRAUDULENT LAWSUIT/FORECLOSURE!!\n\nThey have blocked me from making payments during this process and created an actual arears situation, which I have tried to resolve with their Home Preservation team, but they are extremely uncooperative. \nI am a 100 % XXXX Veteran and I swear on my Oath that these are the TRUE facts, 100 %, and I will not be bullied by Wells Fargo when they are in the wrong. Their Executive Office is not investigating anything and they refuse to acknowledge their significant error in this matter. They are submitting a bunch of mumbo jumbo XXXX as evidence, that they are correct and they are clouding the actual REAL issues in this matter.\n\nWells Fargo is making a MOCKERY of this whole appeals process and they are not participating in good faith to resolve these issues, which could easily be fixed.\n\nThey are 100 % at fault and have filed fraudulent court documents!! They are basically trying to steal my home or force me into a situation where I owe them a significantly increased amount of money. The loan in question was a simple HELOC loan with the noted 3rd party vendor. They did purchase this loan and I believe the reason they are pursuing all this made up XXXX is becasue the rate on the original note in question is only 2.61 %. They are losing money on this loan and they are trying to change that with these activities. I have a letter from their Home Preservation Dept which basically confirms/indicates that the 2.61 % rate is a problem.\n\nI WILL NOT QUIT FIGHTING WELLS FARGO BECAUSE THEY ARE 100 % WRONG and I WILL NOT BE A VICTIM!!\n\nSupport info Wells Fargo continues to refuse to provide useful and accurate responses to the new problems I have noted in my CFPB complaints. They are simply replying with the same inaaccurate information they have submitted previously. They have not personally contatced me in over 120 days and are not accurately addressing my concerns or working to resolve the numerous issues I have noted in my complaint ( s ).\n\nThe situation with their inaccuracies during the payment and insurance/escrow process are fixable, if they would simply acknowledge their errors and correct them. This has gone on for over a year and could have been resolved in the first 60 days ( XX/XX/XXXX ) if they would fix the problems they caused. I have noted that thier own billing documents 100 % fully support my claims of inproprities in their billing and escrow process. They accepted, then misapplied 10 of my P & I payments and manufactured a scenario where I appeared to be deficient in my payments, but that is 100 % inaccurate. They used my P & I payments for other than standard or necessary activities. If they correct the 2 main issues regarding my payments, this whole issue could be resolved. They refuse to even acknowledge any responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on them. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and they misapplied these payments and this is NOT disputable!! I have submitted the prove to them previously. They need to fix that.\n\nAs a result of their noncompliance with my requests for repair, I am now filing a Motion to Dismiss their fraudulent Foreclose lawsuit. I will use thier own documents to prove to the court that their lawsuit is false, based on the misrepresentation/distortion of the facts. I will also file a counter lawsuit for repair of the damages I have incurred as a result of their inappropriate actions. They have 14 days from me filing this complaint ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with CFPB to actually reach out to me and in good faith work to resolve the issues they have created in this fiasco. I am a 100 % XXXX Veteran with XXXX years of service to my country and I have rights and deserve to be treated properly by Wells Fargo XXXX in a fair and just manner. They have refused/ignored my requests for resolution to this matter for months and I will tolerate it no longer. My motion to dismiss based on fraudulent information/documentation will be filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWells Fargo is not addressing or properly responding to the issues I am raising. They continue to resubmit the same response and info that is false and not approriate or accurate to the issues I am raising. Nothing can be resolved if Wells Fargo will not properly address their errors and work to resolve them. To date, they are simply repeating the same inaccurate lies. I will not go away until they work to address and resolve the 100 % accurate issues i am presenting. They have lied on multiple issues and committed fraud by submitting a false petition to the court in regard to the foreclosure lawsuit. \nMy points are 100 % accurate and Wells Fargo continues to ignore them. I NEVER missed a payment and they used my P & I payments for nofarious purposes. \n\nWells Fargo continues to fail to properly respond to my legitimate complaint about their conflict resolution process. I have asked for the complaint to be escalated and reviewed by their legal department and I have requested information from phone calls that has yet to be provided. They have not properly responded to any of this. They are blatantly trying to abuse this process and are failing to address their inappropriate actions, which I have documented with significant proof ( ACTUAL BILLING STATEMENTS ). I will continue to file complaints until they actually respond, in detail, to the information provded in this complaint. They are not above the law, but they are certainly acting like they are and it is disgusting. Wells Fargo STOLE my P & I payments and used them for inappropriate purposes other than payments and then created a false narrative in order to file a Ficticious Foreclosure Lawsuit. They have provided all sorts of nonsensical information that does not apply to my complaint, of which the details ar enoted below. Wells Fargo is refusing to acknowledge their accountability in the issues I have presented. They have lied and created false scenarios that do not address my complaint. They filed a foreclosure lawsuit against me using false data, false numbers and created a scenario that looked like I was at fault or some sort of dead beat, but it is all lies. Now they are dodging any sort of real response by repeating the same lies. They are creating a paperwork smoke screen that is designed to direct attention away from their fraudulent activities and the filing of a Foreclosure lawsuit based on false data and these lies. The CFPB is not holding them accountable and they are simply lying to get out of doing the right thing. I will continue to file complaints until they actually acknowledge what occurred and correct their mistakes. I have proven that they misappropriated funds that I sent to them and used them for inappropriate activities on my account. They charged me for services that I did not need and then did not refund the money and claimed that I was in default. This is absolutely false and thier own documents, billing statements, prove that I am 100 % correct and they continue to hide the truth by dragging in non-sensical issues like XXXX XXXX. This was a simple HELOC that they bought from a 3rd party and not a government supported mortgage. Never was, but they are trying to say it is and ignoring the facts of what they have done to this 100 % XXXX Veteran after I served my country for 30 years.. I have asked them to escalate this to a higher authority and they claim to have no higher authority than these mindless robots who just keep repeating the same lies. I can and have proven, using thier own billing documents, that they misappropriated funds that I sent in to pay the P & I on my loan. I never missed a payment, they simply rerouted my payments to false \" entities '' and then wanted more money from me. Regardless, they mis-used funds that I sent to them and created a false deficit and are hiding behind a bunch of data that does not even apply to the situation I want addressed. I would like to hear from their Legal Department and see what they have to say about the mis-appropriation of my funds and the lies the Executive Office is putting forth. The bottom line is that I sent in 100 % of my payments. They used those payments for other that approriate activities. I had Home Owners insurance 100 % of my time with them and I, along with XXXX XXXX, have proven this.They took my P & I payments to pay some outrageous totally unnecessary insurance policy claiming that I had no insurance at all. They have most certainly broken the law, in my opinion, with some of this fund redistribution activity and filing a Lawsuit using this false data. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and that is indisputable and easily provable. They have recorded customer service phone calls that I made to them, that back up my allegations and they won't acknowledge or provide the call data. They lied to a District Court to get a Foreclosure Lawsuit filed against me and used false \" evidence '' to make it appear that I was in the rears, I was NOT!! I will continue to file CFPB complaints against them until I get some resolution in this matter and I am notifying XXXX XXXX about their illegal activities toward a Highly Decorated 100 % XXXX Veteran of the XXXX XXXX. I want a response from their Legal Department in regard to their activites, including filing a Fraudulent Lawsuit in District Court. I can prove my points to be 100 % accurate using their own billing statements and I can prove they are lying. Wells Fargo is corrupt, in my opinion and experience, and they have been in trouble with the government and legal authorites many times prior to his instance. They pay fines and then go right back to thier past activites. It's time for it to stop!!","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-11T18:26:47.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"786XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22083328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-11T18:19:13.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This created a situation where every <em>payment</em> I made after that transaction was \" late '' and they charged me late fees for it for 3 years, while I <em>disputed</em> the transaction. That <em>payment</em> was NOT DUE to the 3rd party becasue they did NOT OWN the property <em>during</em> this time and my funds were illegally sent to them. Wells Fargo redirected my timely <em>payment</em> from XX/XX/XXXX."],"issue":["<em>Trouble</em> <em>during</em> <em>payment</em> process"],"sub_issue":["Trying to communicate with the company to fix an <em>issue</em> while managing or servicing your loan"]},"sort":[11.085175,"22083328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14970331","_score":11.080464,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I am submitting this complaint because multiple creditors and consumer reporting agencies are reporting inaccurate and harmful information on my credit file that violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 and has caused me significant damage I have made good faith attempts to resolve these issues directly but I continue to be harmed by incorrect addresses unauthorized credit inquiries and inaccurate reporting of accounts I request immediate investigation and enforcement action to ensure my rights are protected XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Issue : Wrong Address Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) Story : This address is inaccurately associated with my credit file. I have never lived, worked, or had any connection with this property. Its presence suggests my personal data may have been mixed with another consumers information or used fraudulently. This error has resulted in accounts and inquiries being reported incorrectly under my name, damaging my credit profile and personal integrity XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Issue : Wrong Address Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681b Story : I have no ties to this address. It appears on my credit report without my knowledge or consent. This suggests either a file merger or ID misuse. Reporting such data reflects a failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy and exposes me to fraudulent liabilities XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Issue : Wrong Address Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681i Story : This address has never belonged to me and its appearance on my credit file is deeply troubling. It raises questions about the validity of accounts attached to it and indicates a serious breach of data accuracy and identity integrity XXXX XXXXXXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$32000.00} Issue : Late Payment Law : FCRA 1681s-2, 1681i Story : This account reflects a late payment that I dispute. I experienced a temporary financial hardship during the time in question and reached out for a payment arrangement, which was acknowledged but never updated on the report. Instead, a derogatory status was added, ignoring my efforts. This violates my rights as a consumer and unfairly damages my payment history XXXX XXXXXXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$16000.00} Issue : Late Payment Law : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681e ( b ) Story : This account was impacted by technical issues in my online banking system. Payments were made but processed late due to systemic issues. I provided documentation, yet the creditor refused to reinvestigate. The reporting is unfair and incomplete, harming my credibility as a borrower XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$0.00} Issue : Late Payment Law : FCRA 1681c, 1681e ( b ) Story : This loan is closed and has been paid in full, yet late payments remain on record. This account should not reflect derogatory information post-closure. This misrepresentation creates a false narrative of delinquency and damages future lending decisions XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$6700.00} Issue : Charge Off Law : FCRA 1681s-2, 1681b Story : This charge-off is being reported while the account was actively in dispute and under review for fraudulent activity. I submitted fraud documentation and affidavits, but the bank ignored these communications. Reporting it as charged-off while in active dispute is misleading and in bad faith XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$0.00} Issue : Late Payment Law : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681c Story : This account is closed and has a {$0.00} balance, yet reflects derogatory late payments. This serves no legitimate purpose and creates a skewed risk profile for me. Late payments on closed, paid accounts only serve to punish the consumer without basis XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$0.00} Issue : Charge Off Law : FCRA 1681s-2, 1681i Story : I had an agreement in place to resolve this debt and maintain current status, yet the servicer failed to properly record and report my compliance. This error caused a wrongful charge-off status to appear and has caused major denial of credit access XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b ( f ) Story : I did not authorize any application or transaction on this date with XXXX XXXX. This inquiry was done without my consent, resulting in a hard pull that lowered my credit score and was done in violation of federal law XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b, 1681c-1 Story : Repeated inquiries by this lender are unjustified and reflect a potential abuse of access. I did not authorize any transaction at this time, making this pull unlawful XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b Story : This credit pull was not initiated by me. I have had no dealings with this institution and no consent was provided. This unauthorized action damaged my credit XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Duplicate Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b Story : This repeated inquiry is part of a series of unapproved pulls by XXXX XXXX . These hard inquiries are hurting my credit score and reputation for reasons I did not initiate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b Story : I did not authorize XXXX  XXXX to pull my credit on this date. This indicates either a clerical error or potential fraud that needs immediate correction XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b Story : I did not initiate any loan or request for credit on this date with OneMain. I request this be immediately investigated and removed XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Duplicate Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b Story : No relationship with this company justifies repeated inquiries. These actions violate my rights and privacy XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Repeated Unauthorized Inquiry Law : FCRA 1681b Story : Repeated credit access by this company without consent reflects a systemic failure in oversight and respect for consumer rights These repeated violations of my consumer rights have resulted in credit denials higher interest rates and emotional stress I have made multiple attempts to contact the reporting entities but they have failed to act in good faith or provide proof of permissible purpose or verification I request the CFPB investigate each of the above items enforce accountability and compel the involved parties to delete or correct the disputed entries according to FCRA 1681i and 1681s-2 I am also requesting punitive action for any willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n and negligent noncompliance under 1681o I am attaching a copy of my ID proof of current address and credit reports for reference Thank you for protecting consumers like me","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-30T20:13:00.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90250","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14970331","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-30T20:10:06.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It raises questions about the validity of accounts attached to it and indicates a serious breach of data accuracy and identity integrity XXXX XXXXXXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$32000.00} <em>Issue</em> : Late <em>Payment</em> Law : FCRA 1681s-2, 1681i Story : This account reflects a late <em>payment</em> that I <em>dispute</em>. I experienced a temporary financial hardship <em>during</em> the time in question and reached out for a <em>payment</em> arrangement, which was acknowledged but never updated on the report."]},"sort":[11.080464,"14970331"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5591821","_score":10.838577,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"A brief summary is provided here with details to follow below. \n- After Regions yearly analysis, my escrow account was noted to be short approximately $ XXXX, which caused a $ XXXX increase in my mortgage payment for the year. I did not receive notification of this until I was called in XX/XX/XXXX. \n- When I spoke to a representative in XXXX and told them that I would have trouble making that payment, she told me that I was eligible for a hardship package. \n- This same representative said that during the hardship process I should not make any payment, and that there would not be any reporting to the credit agencies during this process. \n- Regions reported a delinquency on my credit. \n- On several occasions, I had to call Regions for follow up due to their poor communication with me during this awful time. There were several promises to call me back that were not kept. \n- After many reviews, it was determined that Regions incorrectly calculated the escrow account, and my shortage was eventually decreased to a more manageable payment. \n- I requested that the delinquency be removed considering Regions mistake AND the misinformation I received from their representative. \n- Regions did not remove the delinquency, and there is no indication that they reviewed the call. The delinquency on my credit report is causing significant damage to my livelihood and quality of life. \n\nDetailed Account : On XX/XX/XXXX, a representative from Regions Bank called to inform me that my mortgage had not been paid for the month of XX/XX/XXXX. This was surprising to me as I have set up automatic monthly payments. I advised that I would pay the payment over the phone. At that time, I was told that it would be approximately $ XXXX more than I was previously paying due to changes in escrow. I advised that it was difficult to make that payment as I had not been informed of the increase, and because the increase was astronomical. \n\nAt that point, I was transferred to XXXX XXXX in the loan servicing department. She advised that I may be eligible for a hardship. She asked a series of questions, and said that I was eligible. I informed her that I did not know anything about this process and asked some questions, specifically about what to do regarding my payment while going through the hardship process. She told me that it was a long process, and that I would receive a packet in the mail with instructions on next steps. I asked several times whether I needed to make a payment in the meantime. She instructed that I should NOT make a payment and that NO CREDIT REPORTING for late payments would happen until the hardship process was completed. When asked, she clarified that the hardship process started as soon as she sent the hardship packet out ( the same day of this call ), and that the only thing I needed to do at this point was wait for the packet to complete. The estimated ship time was 7-10 business days. She also noted that there were due dates I would need to pay attention to in the packet. She also offered to send the new escrow statement. We ended this call. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received another call from Regions Bank about my XXXX payment. I spoke with XXXX XXXX in loan servicing. At that time, I informed him that I had not yet received the hardship packet, and he said that he saw that one had been sent to me. He said that he would send another to make sure I got one. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received notification that Regions Bank had reported a delinquency to the credit bureaus. I still had not received the hardship packet. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received the hardship packet and started discussing it with my attorney and financial advisor. I also sent them my closing paperwork and escrow statements so that they could review and determine why there was such a drastic change in payment amount. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Regions Bank to pay my XXXX and XXXX payments, as well as pay off my shortage balance. I paid the XXXX and XXXX payments over the phone, then asked to speak with someone about the shortage amount. I was transferred to customer service, and I spoke with an agent named XXXX extensively about my loan. During that call, she was confused about the shortage balance that I needed to pay. When I pointed out that the numbers were not matching, she then noted various reasons for the confusion. She said that the bank had paid an increased amount to my homeowners insurance, and that I was being charged for the increase. When I inquired about why they overpaid the insurance company, she was not sure and said that she would send to the insurance department to review. She also noted that Regions estimated MUD taxes in my escrow balance, but had not yet paid those taxes. She said that she would send this to the tax department for review since her research showed that I probably should not be paying MUD taxes. I also requested that the phone call on XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX be reviewed and requested that the bank remedy my credit report since I was given incorrect information about credit reporting in that call. She said that she would call me back by the end of the week to give updates. I did not pay the shortage amount at that time due to the inconsistencies. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Regions Bank to follow up on the prior call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) since XXXX had not called me back. I was transferred to customer service and spoke with XXXX XXXX since XXXX was not available at the time. XXXX reviewed the notes on my account and found the following : - A dispute had been initiated in their credit department regarding the delinquency reporting to the credit agencies. Nothing back yet. Takes 30 days. The dispute had been initiated on XX/XX/XXXX. When I asked whether the call had been reviewed, she said that the call had not been reviewed, but it has been noted that I wanted the recording and delinquency reporting reviewed. \n- Regarding Insurance : They had spoken to XXXX at my insurance company and the premium had been increased, so they needed to recoup the amount they overpaid. \n- Regarding the MUD taxes : She said the task was open but not completed. She then said that she no longer saw the MUD taxes on my escrow statement, and that they were probably removed. I asked for clarity from tax department to be sure, and an updated escrow statement. She offered to transfer me to XXXX who has been working on this issue for more clarity, but then said that she was unavailable. She then said XXXX had a note to call me back by the XXXX. I told her there was supposed to be a call back by today. Stressed to her that I wanted to get this resolved before my next payment was due by XX/XX/XXXX. She said that, per notes : MUD taxes removed. XXXX will contact me. They are working on an updated escrow. XXXX will send an email to XXXX asking her to call me this week. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an automated notification via email of new documents ready to review in my Regions account. I had received a new escrow statement showing a new, lower, monthly payment amount after the new analysis showed that I was, in fact, being assessed incorrectly to need money in my escrow account for MUD taxes. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Regions Bank again since I still had not received any call back from them regarding this issue. At that time, the representative attempted to transfer me to XXXX, but she was not available. I spoke with XXXX in customer service instead. She said credit report is still being reviewed. No updates were available since the credit team needed to do an in depth review. She said the last update in the notes was on the XXXX, and that someone was working on it, but the notes did not give any specific information. I asked to be transferred to speak to someone in that department, and she said there was no one is available to speak with me because that department did not have phone lines. She then said that I would get a letter in mail with results. At this time, I paid the shortage on the corrected escrow statement. These numbers were consistent with the numbers outlined by my financial advisor. XXXX took the payment and said that she would send a new billing statement showing the updated payment amount without the shortage on it. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter in the mail from Regions Bank dated XX/XX/XXXX indicating that they would not remove the delinquency reporting because the payment was late. There was no indicating that they reviewed the recording of the call on XX/XX/XXXX in which a Regions loan officer, XXXX, told me NOT to make the payment since a hardship packet had been started. \n\nI am writing this complaint to request that you have Regions review my file again. Until their analysis mistake, my account has never been late. I have made all of my payments on time. Had it not been for the misinformation received from a Regions representative, I would have made the XXXX payment to avoid a late payment. Prior to this, I have not had any late payment issues on my credit, which allowed me to qualify for this loan. In fact, I have made XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX payments, and even paid off the shortage to get my escrow account to the required amount. Due to this entire mishap, and Regions unwillingness to fix their mistake, my credit score has dropped significantly, and it is affecting many things that I am needing to do. It has also caused a significant amount of stress and anguish. \n\nIt is completely unacceptable to be in this position due to their mistake. I am requesting that this be reviewed not just for me, but for other clients who may be experiencing the same issue due to their incorrect escrow analysis.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-05-22T21:38:57.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"77004","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5591821","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-05-22T21:31:16.000Z","state":"TX","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":["Had it not been for the misinformation received from a Regions representative, I would <em>have</em> made the XXXX <em>payment</em> to avoid a late <em>payment</em>. Prior to this, I <em>have</em> not had any late <em>payment</em> <em>issues</em> on my credit, which allowed me to qualify for this loan. In fact, I <em>have</em> made XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX <em>payments</em>, and even paid off the shortage to get my escrow account to the required amount."],"issue":["<em>Trouble</em> <em>during</em> <em>payment</em> process"]},"sort":[10.838577,"5591821"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14867835","_score":10.692861,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Supplemental Challenge CFPB Complaint Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental complaint against Equifax regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX. This filing also references a pending CFPB dispute submitted XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nEquifaxs XX/XX/XXXX response is unacceptable, factually inaccurate, and reflects a complete failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe mailed notice claims : We have verified that this item belongs to you. Additional information has been provided from the original source. \n\nAnd that : The following fields have been modified : additional information, high credit, date of major delinquency, 1st reported, historical account information, account history. \n\nHowever, the account history reflected in this XX/XX/XXXX report is identical to Equifaxs previous results from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, under dispute reports # XXXX and # XXXX. No actual modifications or data corrections have occurred meaning the XX/XX/XXXX report is a false representation of reinvestigation results. \n\nEquifax Failed to Investigate Ignored Key Evidence and Relied Entirely on the Furnisher Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX mailed dispute results ( Report # XXXX ) appear to be a formal confirmation of the same findings Equifax issued in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute. Both responses claim that the account has been verified and updated based on information received from the furnisher. \n\nHowever, this account was not updated in any factual way. \n\nIn fact : The account history remains identical to the results issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( Reports # XXXX and # XXXX ) No changes were made to the core issue in dispute the false charge-off status and notations and the fabricated {$2500.00} balance. \nEquifax relied on the alleged furnisher, XXXX XXXX, despite their own documentation being internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, and legally invalid. \n\nMost concerning is that Equifax has already been notified and has access to the actual promissory note and full bank payment history, which were submitted as part of my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint ( still under investigation ). \n\nThose documents prove : The loan required only 18 biweekly payments not 21 ; I made over 20 verified payments totaling more than {$3100.00}, which exceeded the original loan obligation of {$2700.00} ; XXXX XXXX  has admitted to multiple third-party transfers, meaning they can not lawfully validate or furnish this data without providing full documentation of re-assignment or re-purchase which has never been done. \n\nDespite this overwhelming evidence, Equifax has made no effort to correct or even acknowledge these facts in either the XX/XX/XXXX mailed response or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB update. \n\nEquifaxs claim that additional information was provided by the original source has no foundation or supported evidence, particularly when : No actual updates occurred to the tradeline, None of the consumer submitted documentation was reviewed or addressed, and The data being verified is false based on the actual terms of the loan agreement, verified payment history, and the timeline of events. \n\nEven more troubling who exactly is Equifax identifying as the original source? Because XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have both confirmed in writing that this account was sent to multiple third-party collection agencies. And while XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have avoided explicitly stating they relinquished their rights, basic credit reporting standards which Equifax is well aware of makes this fact clear : When an account is placed with a third-party collection agency, the original creditor can no longer legally validate, verify, or furnish data on that debt unless they have properly reassigned the account and can produce documentation of that transfer. \n\nEquifax has not received and has not reviewed any such documentation showing that XXXX or XXXX currently have legal standing authority to furnish or validate this account. Yet Equifax continues to treat their data as valid without evidence, which constitutes willful negligence under the FCRA. \n\nEquifaxs Own Credit Reporting Contradicts the Charge-Off and Confirms a Failure to Investigate Equifaxs own data shows that this account was never late during the life of the loan. \n\nSpecifically : The loan term is listed as 9 months, Payments are shown from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX totaling 10 months of consistent, on-time payments, No delinquencies or missed payments are reflected during this time. \n\nThis directly contradicts the claim that the account became delinquent and was legally charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. If the loan ended in XX/XX/XXXX ( based on the end date in the Promissory note ) all payments were made on time as confirmed by Equifaxs reporting there is no lawful or logical basis for the charge-off. \n\nInstead of recognizing this contradiction and correcting the tradeline, Equifax repeated XXXX version of events without question, even though their own records refute it. This failure to reconcile internal data with furnisher claims is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ), which require maximum possible accuracy and a meaningful reinvestigation. \n\n\nXXXX  and XXXX  Have Admitted to Multiple Ownership Transfers Equifax Ignores This In the letters I submitted with my CFPB complaints, XXXX and XXXX  both admit the account was sent to third-party collectors on multiple occasions. This means : They relinquished their right to report the tradeline, Yet Equifax continues to list XXXX XXXX as the active creditor, With no notation of any third-party collection placement from XXXX through XXXX a blatant omission that violates FCRA 623 and 607 ( b ). \n\nEven if the account was allegedly returned to XXXX, they are legally required to provide chain of title documentation proving : The transfer ( s ) out, The transfer ( s ) back in, and A current, lawful right to furnish data.\n\nEquifax has no record of these transfers and never received or verified such documentation meaning the account is unverifiable.\n\nA Charged-Off Account Can not Also Be Outstanding and In Collections In a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX corporate representative stated the account is : Currently in collections with TrueAccord and still has an outstanding balance. \n\nEquifaxs credit report lists the account as : Charged Off, Past Due, Still owed to XXXX XXXX, And not associated with any collection agency. \n\nThis is a FCRA violation. An account can not legally be : Charged off, In active collection, Reported with a balance by the original creditor, all at the same time, with no collection agency listed. \n\nEquifax is knowingly reporting contradictory and deceptive information, and it is harming my creditworthiness. \n\nThe Charge-Off Is False, Unsupported, and Violates Federal Law Beyond the internal contradictions in Equifaxs reporting , the entire charge-off is legally invalid based on documentation Ive already submitted including : The promissory note, which confirms the loan required 18 biweekly payments, My bank statements, which prove I made 20+ payments totaling over {$3100.00}, exceeding the scheduled repayment of {$2700.00}, And FinWises own letters, which fail to explain how a fully paid loan was ever charged off.\n\nEven XXXX claim that I made 14 of 21 payments is false and unsupported not only because the loan was never structured for 21 payments, but also because even 14 payments would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.\n\nThere is no valid charge-off amount, no missed payment on record, and no delinquency reported during the life of the loan. Therefore, Equifaxs continued reporting of a {$2500.00} charge-off balance is not just inaccurate it is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and has caused me long-term financial harm.\n\nIntent to Sue and Demand for Deletion and Damages Equifax has now had : Multiple disputes filed over a five-year period Access to detailed documentation, including the original promissory note and consumer financial payment history Letters from XXXX XXXX and XXXX admitting the account was transferred to third-party collectors Internal credit reporting data that clearly contradicts the charge-off status and alleged delinquency Despite all this, Equifax has refused to correct or delete the account, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations have caused serious damage to my creditworthiness, limited my access to financing, and created emotional and financial hardship.\n\nI am preparing to pursue legal action under FCRA 616 and 617, which allow recovery of statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.\n\nBelow is a breakdown of the violations, responsible parties, and the monetary value of damages I intend to pursue if this account is not permanently deleted.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax continued to report a {$2500.00} charge-off balance despite : Its own records showing 10 months of on-time payments, A loan term of 9 months, and No reported delinquency prior to charge-off.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ) : {$1000.00} Actual harm : Denial of credit and suppressed FICO score Claimed amount : {$5000.00} in actual and statutory damages FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to Reinvestigate Consumer Disputes Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax relied solely on the furnishers unverifiable narrative, ignored consumer submitted evidence, and issued repeated verified results without addressing : My bank statements proving full payment, The promissory note showing only 18 required payments, The internal contradiction between Equifaxs reporting and the charge-off claim.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per dispute cycle ) : {$2000.00} Actual harm : Ongoing credit damage from XXXX Claimed amount : {$10000.00} in total damages FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : FinWise and OppLoans admitted the account was placed with multiple third-party collectors. Equifax has no documentation verifying any legal reassignment, yet continues to report the account under XXXX XXXX. \n\nEvidence : XXXX  letters ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX  corporate recorded phone call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming current placement with XXXX  Absence of chain-of-title documentation provided to Equifax Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ) : {$1000.00} Punitive damages for willful noncompliance : $ XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate Violator ( s ) : XXXX XXXX, XXXX Violation XXXX Reported that I made 14 of 21 payments directly refuted by the loan agreement and bank records Supplied a fabricated charge-off balance of {$2500.00}, despite verified overpayment Failed to report third-party collection transfers, violating data integrity and transparency Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per furnisher violation ) : {$2000.00} Claimed actual harm : Damaged credit score, financing rejections, inflated interest rates Claimed amount : {$8000.00} in statutory, actual, and punitive damages Total Claim ( If Litigation Is Pursued ) : FCRA statutory damages : {$6000.00} Actual economic harm ( credit denials, interest rate increases ) : {$10000.00} Punitive damages for willful violations and negligent reinvestigations : {$15000.00} Attorneys fees and legal costs : XXXX  Total claim : $ XXXX Equifax has had multiple chances to investigate this account properly and lawfully correct or delete it. If this reporting is not removed, I will take further legal action and seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages as outlined. This complaint will be forwarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and my State Attorney General for additional review and investigation. \n\nSupplemental CFPB Complaint Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Investigation Failure and Ongoing Reporting of an Illegally Charged-Off Account Dispute Report References : # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( CFPB # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX ( Pending ) This is a formal supplemental complaint against Equifax regarding their mailed dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the FinWise Bank/OppLoans tradeline. This filing also references a pending CFPB dispute submitted XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nEquifaxs XX/XX/XXXX response is unacceptable, factually inaccurate, and reflects a complete failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe mailed notice claims : We have verified that this item belongs to you. Additional information has been provided from the original source. \n\nAnd that : The following fields have been modified : additional information, high credit, date of major delinquency, 1st reported, historical account information, account history. \n\nHowever, the account history reflected in this XX/XX/XXXX report is identical to Equifaxs previous results from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, under dispute reports # XXXX and # XXXX. No actual modifications or data corrections have occurred meaning the XX/XX/XXXX report is a false representation of reinvestigation results. \n\nEquifax Failed to Investigate Ignored Key Evidence and Relied Entirely on the Furnisher Equifaxs XX/XX/XXXX mailed dispute results ( Report # XXXX ) appear to be a formal confirmation of the same findings Equifax issued in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute. Both responses claim that the account has been verified and updated based on information received from the furnisher. \n\nHowever, this account was not updated in any factual way. \n\nIn fact : The account history remains identical to the results issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( Reports # XXXX and # XXXX ) No changes were made to the core issue in dispute the false charge-off status and notations and the fabricated {$2500.00} balance. \nEquifax relied on the alleged furnisher, XXXX XXXX, despite their own documentation being internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, and legally invalid. \n\nMost concerning is that Equifax has already been notified and has access to the actual promissory note and full bank payment history, which were submitted as part of my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint ( still under investigation ). \n\nThose documents prove : The loan required only 18 biweekly payments not 21 ; I made over 20 verified payments totaling more than {$3100.00}, which exceeded the original loan obligation of {$2700.00} ; XXXX XXXX has admitted to multiple third-party transfers, meaning they can not lawfully validate or furnish this data without providing full documentation of re-assignment or re-purchase which has never been done. \n\nDespite this overwhelming evidence, Equifax has made no effort to correct or even acknowledge these facts in either the XX/XX/XXXX mailed response or the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB update. \n\nEquifaxs claim that additional information was provided by the original source has no foundation or supported evidence, particularly when : No actual updates occurred to the tradeline, None of the consumer submitted documentation was reviewed or addressed, and The data being verified is false based on the actual terms of the loan agreement, verified payment history, and the timeline of events. \n\nEven more troubling who exactly is Equifax identifying as the original source? Because XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have both confirmed in writing that this account was sent to multiple third-party collection agencies. And while XXXX XXXX  and XXXX have avoided explicitly stating they relinquished their rights, basic credit reporting standards which Equifax is well aware of makes this fact clear : When an account is placed with a third-party collection agency, the original creditor can no longer legally validate, verify, or furnish data on that debt unless they have properly reassigned the account and can produce documentation of that transfer. \n\nEquifax has not received and has not reviewed any such documentation showing that XXXX or XXXX currently have legal standing authority to furnish or validate this account. Yet Equifax continues to treat their data as valid without evidence, which constitutes willful negligence under the FCRA. \n\nEquifaxs Own Credit Reporting Contradicts the Charge-Off and Confirms a Failure to Investigate Equifaxs own data shows that this account was never late during the life of the loan. \n\nSpecifically : The loan term is listed as 9 months, Payments are shown from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX totaling 10 months of consistent, on-time payments, No delinquencies or missed payments are reflected during this time. \n\nThis directly contradicts the claim that the account became delinquent and was legally charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. If the loan ended in XX/XX/XXXX ( based on the end date in the Promissory note ) all payments were made on time as confirmed by Equifaxs reporting there is no lawful or logical basis for the charge-off. \n\nInstead of recognizing this contradiction and correcting the tradeline, Equifax repeated XXXX version of events without question, even though their own records refute it. This failure to reconcile internal data with furnisher claims is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ), which require maximum possible accuracy and a meaningful reinvestigation. \n\n\nXXXX  and XXXX Have Admitted to Multiple Ownership Transfers Equifax Ignores This In the letters I submitted with my CFPB complaints, XXXX and XXXX  both admit the account was sent to third-party collectors on multiple occasions. This means : They relinquished their right to report the tradeline, Yet Equifax continues to list XXXX XXXX  as the active creditor, With no notation of any third-party collection placement from XXXX through XXXX a blatant omission that violates FCRA 623 and 607 ( b ).\n\nEven if the account was allegedly returned to XXXX, they are legally required to provide chain of title documentation proving : The transfer ( s ) out, The transfer ( s ) back in, and A current, lawful right to furnish data. \n\nEquifax has no record of these transfers and never received or verified such documentation meaning the account is unverifiable. \n\nA Charged-Off Account Can not Also Be Outstanding and In Collections In a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX corporate representative stated the account is : Currently in collections with XXXX  and still has an outstanding balance. \n\nEquifaxs credit report lists the account as : Charged Off, Past Due, Still owed to XXXX XXXX, And not associated with any collection agency. \n\nThis is a FCRA violation. An account can not legally be : Charged off, In active collection, Reported with a balance by the original creditor, all at the same time, with no collection agency listed. \n\nEquifax is knowingly reporting contradictory and deceptive information, and it is harming my creditworthiness. \n\nThe Charge-Off Is False, Unsupported, and Violates Federal Law Beyond the internal contradictions in Equifaxs reporting , the entire charge-off is legally invalid based on documentation Ive already submitted including : The promissory note, which confirms the loan required 18 biweekly payments, My bank statements, which prove I made 20+ payments totaling over {$3100.00}, exceeding the scheduled repayment of {$2700.00}, And XXXX  own letters, which fail to explain how a fully paid loan was ever charged off. \n\nEven XXXX  claim that I made 14 of 21 payments is false and unsupported not only because the loan was never structured for 21 payments, but also because even 14 payments would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.\n\nThere is no valid charge-off amount, no missed payment on record, and no delinquency reported during the life of the loan. Therefore, Equifaxs continued reporting of a {$2500.00} charge-off balance is not just inaccurate it is a direct violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and has caused me long-term financial harm. \n\nIntent to Sue and Demand for Deletion and Damages Equifax has now had : Multiple disputes filed over a five-year period Access to detailed documentation, including the original promissory note and consumer financial payment history Letters from XXXX XXXX  and XXXX admitting the account was transferred to third-party collectors Internal credit reporting data that clearly contradicts the charge-off status and alleged delinquency Despite all this, Equifax has refused to correct or delete the account, in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations have caused serious damage to my creditworthiness, limited my access to financing, and created emotional and financial hardship.\n\nI am preparing to pursue legal action under FCRA 616 and 617, which allow recovery of statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.\n\nBelow is a breakdown of the violations, responsible parties, and the monetary value of damages I intend to pursue if this account is not permanently deleted.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax continued to report a {$2500.00} charge-off balance despite : Its own records showing 10 months of on-time payments, A loan term of 9 months, and No reported delinquency prior to charge-off.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per violation ) : {$1000.00} Actual harm : Denial of credit and suppressed XXXX score Claimed amount : {$5000.00} in actual and statutory damages FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to Reinvestigate Consumer Disputes Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : Equifax relied solely on the furnishers unverifiable narrative, ignored consumer submitted evidence, and issued repeated verified results without addressing : My bank statements proving full payment, The promissory note showing only 18 required payments, The internal contradiction between Equifaxs reporting and the charge-off claim.\n\nStatutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per dispute cycle ) : {$2000.00} Actual harm : Ongoing credit damage from XXXX Claimed amount : {$10000.00} in total damages FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to Delete Unverifiable Information Violator ( s ) : Equifax Violation : FinWise and OppLoans admitted the account was placed with multiple third-party collectors. Equifax has no documentation verifying any legal reassignment, yet continues to report the account under XXXX XXXX. \n\nEvidence : XXXX  letters ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX  corporate recorded phone call ( XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming current placement with XXXX  Absence of chain-of-title documentation provided to Equifax Statutory damages ( XXXX XXXX {$1000.00} ) : {$1000.00} Punitive damages for willful noncompliance : $ XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing Information Known to Be Inaccurate Violator ( s ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Violation XXXX Reported that I made 14 of 21 payments directly refuted by the loan agreement and bank records Supplied a fabricated charge-off balance of {$2500.00}, despite verified overpayment Failed to report third-party collection transfers, violating data integrity and transparency Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} per furnisher violation ) : {$2000.00} Claimed actual harm : Damaged credit score, financing rejections, inflated interest rates Claimed amount : {$8000.00} in statutory, actual, and punitive damages Total Claim ( If Litigation Is Pursued ) : FCRA statutory damages : {$6000.00} Actual economic harm ( credit denials, interest rate increases ) : {$10000.00} Punitive damages for willful violations and negligent reinvestigations : {$15000.00} Attorneys fees and legal costs : TBD Total claim : $ XXXX Equifax has had multiple chances to investigate this account properly and lawfully correct or delete it. If this reporting is not removed, I will take further legal action and seek statutory, actual, and punitive damages as outlined. This complaint will be forwarded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and my State Attorney General for additional review and investigation.\n\nI demand that Equifax permanently delete this account from my credit report, as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) and XXXX XXXX compliance standards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-24T03:40:32.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14867835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-24T03:28:43.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Even XXXX claim that I made 14 of 21 <em>payments</em> is false and unsupported not only <em>because</em> the loan was never structured for 21 <em>payments</em>, but also <em>because</em> even 14 <em>payments</em> would total over {$2100.00}, making a {$2500.00} charge-off balance mathematically impossible.\n\nThere is no valid charge-off amount, no missed <em>payment</em> on record, and no delinquency reported <em>during</em> the life of the loan."]},"sort":[10.692861,"14867835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17183045","_score":10.656379,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Over the past several months, I have been working diligently to ensure that the information being reported on my consumer credit reports is complete, accurate, and verified in accordance with federal law. During this process, I discovered multiple inconsistencies and apparent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) involving two accounts that are currently being reported as derogatory by the major consumer reporting agencies. These accounts are listed as originating from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI initially became aware of the problem when I reviewed my full tri-merged credit report from the three nationwide credit bureaus. That review showed a generally positive payment history across numerous open and closed accounts. Most accounts were in good standing, reflecting timely payments, modest balances, and responsible credit utilization. However, two particular accounts stood out because they were being reported as derogatory or charged-off, even though I had never received adequate proof of their validity or ownership. \n\nThe accounts in question were as follows : one from XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ) reported as a collection/charge-off closed on XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a past due balance of approximately {$17000.00}, and one from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ) reported as a collection/charge-off with a past due balance of approximately {$5700.00}. The first appears on more than one bureau, while the second appears primarily on XXXX file. No public records, bankruptcies, or judgments accompany these accounts, which suggests that they are isolated entries that should have been properly validated before being published. \n\nImmediately after noticing these entries, I began a series of formal disputes with each of the credit reporting agencies under FCRA 611 ( a ). My goal was simple : to verify that the data being furnished to my consumer file was accurate, verifiable, and reported by a legitimate data furnisher with legal standing. Under the law, I have the right to request a description of the method of verification used by a consumer reporting agency to verify disputed information. This means the bureau must identify the source of the data, the system used to verify it, and whether the verification was completed through e-OSCAR ( an electronic system used between furnishers and credit bureaus ), through manual review, or through some other method. \n\nDespite submitting clear and lawful written disputes, the responses I received from the credit reporting agencies were insufficient and failed to satisfy the statutory requirements. Each bureau responded with a standardized form letter indicating that the account had been verified as accurate, but none of them provided supporting evidence, copies of original signed contracts, billing statements, or assignment documentation from the alleged creditors. This lack of transparency undermines the very purpose of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires consumer reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation whenever a consumer disputes an item on their report. \n\nIn addition to the absence of documentation, none of the credit bureaus explained what data sources were used to conduct their reinvestigation. They did not clarify whether the information was verified through automated systems, electronic responses, or actual human review. This omission is significant because FCRA 607 ( b ) mandates that credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. An automated or unverified confirmation from a furnisher does not meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nFurthermore, under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), if a consumer requests the method of verification, the bureau is required to provide the name, address, and telephone number of the furnisher contacted, as well as a detailed explanation of the procedure used to verify the information. None of the bureaus complied with this requirement, leaving me without any understanding of how or why the disputed items continue to appear. \n\nThe situation with XXXX XXXX XXXX is particularly troubling. I have never received any communication from this entity verifying the alleged debt, nor have I been provided a copy of an original signed agreement or any chain of title demonstrating lawful ownership or assignment. According to FDCPA 809 ( b ), when a consumer disputes a debt in writing and requests validation, the collector must cease all collection activity and provide verification before continuing to report the account. Yet, despite repeated written requests for validation and verification, the credit bureaus continue to publish this derogatory information based solely on data supplied by the furnisherwithout any proof of authenticity. \n\nThe account from XXXX XXXX XXXX presents similar issues. It is unclear what this account is or how it originated. There has been no documentation, no proof of ownership, and no explanation as to why this debt is being attributed to my name. The amount listed appears arbitrary and inconsistent with my financial records. In addition, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided any legal contract, billing statement, or assignment documents verifying that I owe the alleged amount or that they have the legal right to report it. \n\nOver time, I also observed that these accounts appeared inconsistently across different credit bureau files. One account appeared on two bureaus, while the other was present only on TransUnion. This discrepancy indicates that at least one bureau either failed to receive the same data from the furnisher or rejected it for accuracy reasons, which should have triggered a broader review under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ). That section explicitly requires consumer reporting agencies to delete information that can not be verified. \n\nThroughout this process, I have made multiple good-faith efforts to resolve the issue directly with the reporting agencies. I have sent written disputes, requested validation, and asked for audit trails. I have even cited the relevant sections of the FCRA and FDCPA in each letter, including FCRA 602A, 607B, 609 ( a ), 611 ( a ), and 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), as well as FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and 809 ( b ). My intent was to give each bureau and furnisher every opportunity to correct or validate the disputed data before I escalated the issue further. However, none of the bureaus provided the documentation required under law, and the derogatory items remain in my file to this day. \n\nThis has caused measurable harm. Because of these unverifiable derogatory entries, I have faced denials of credit and unfavorable terms on financial products that otherwise would have been approved based on my payment history and responsible credit usage. In addition, these inaccurate entries have affected my credit score, which is used by employers, landlords, insurers, and financial institutions. The emotional and financial impact of having false or unverified information on my credit report is significant and ongoing. \n\nTo be clear, I am not refusing to pay any legitimate debt. My only request is that the credit reporting agencies and furnishers follow the law and provide verifiable proof of the accuracy and ownership of these accounts. If they can produce legally sufficient documentationsuch as the original signed contract, itemized billing statements, or legally binding assignment documentsI will review the materials and take appropriate action. However, if they can not produce such proof, the law requires them to delete or suppress the information immediately. \n\nThe bureaus continued reliance on unverified electronic confirmation from furnishers constitutes procedural negligence. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously issued interpretive rules clarifying that the reinvestigation process can not be automated and must involve a reasonable review of underlying documentation. Simply marking a dispute as verified based on an e-OSCAR code response does not fulfill the FCRAs requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nMoreover, the furnishers themselves have a duty under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) to mark accounts as disputed by consumer when notified of a dispute. If a furnisher fails to mark the account as disputed while continuing to report it, this constitutes a direct violation of the FCRA. I have reason to believe that neither XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX XXXX have appropriately marked these accounts as disputed, since they continue to appear as standard negative items without dispute notation on the latest copies of my reports. \n\nI have also requested the complete audit trail associated with these accounts, including timestamps, user IDs, and system logs showing who reported, updated, or verified the information. This is essential to determine whether the data furnishers had proper authorization and whether the reporting agencies followed their internal procedures for reinvestigation. To date, none of this information has been provided. \n\nIn summary, the issues can be described as follows : Two derogatory accounts remain on my credit reports despite multiple disputes and requests for validation. \n\nThe credit bureaus have failed to provide a clear description of the method of verification used to confirm the accuracy of the information. \n\nThe furnishers, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, have failed to provide original documentation proving the validity and ownership of the alleged debts. \n\nThe bureaus have not provided audit trails, timestamps, or records showing the procedural steps of reinvestigation. \n\nThese failures constitute potential violations of FCRA 602A, 607B, 611 ( a ) and FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and 809 ( b ). \n\nThe continued publication of unverifiable data has caused financial and reputational harm. \n\nBecause of these facts, I am requesting that this matter be escalated for regulatory review and enforcement. I ask that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate the actions of both the credit reporting agencies and the furnishers involved to determine whether they have complied with federal law. \n\nSpecifically, I ask that each bureau be required to produce : A written statement identifying the furnisher contacted during the reinvestigation, the system used, and the nature of the verification. \n\nCertified copies of the original documents provided by the furnisher that prove the accuracy and ownership of the account. \n\nCopies of any data transmission, e-OSCAR messages, or internal communications exchanged between the bureaus and furnishers regarding these disputes. \n\nConfirmation that any unverifiable or unvalidated information has been deleted or suppressed in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \n\nIf the bureaus can not produce these materials, they should be directed to delete the disputed accounts immediately and confirm in writing that deletion to both me and the furnishers. Furthermore, if the furnishers have failed to maintain appropriate validation records, they should be prohibited from further reporting of this data under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nThe broader issue here is not simply about two tradelines but about the integrity of the entire credit reporting process. Consumers rely on the accuracy of their reports to obtain housing, employment, and financial services. When a credit bureau allows unverifiable or inaccurate data to persist, it undermines confidence in the system and causes direct harm to individuals. \n\nThroughout this process, I have acted in good faith, submitted all required documentation, and provided the agencies ample opportunity to correct their records. Yet, despite these efforts, the inaccurate and unverified information remains, demonstrating a systemic failure to uphold the consumer protections mandated by law. \n\nI am therefore requesting the CFPBs assistance in ensuring that my credit reports are corrected and that all parties involved are held accountable for their compliance obligations under the FCRA and FDCPA. I am also requesting that the agencies provide a written certification confirming deletion of any unverifiable or inaccurate information and a statement of the steps taken to prevent future reinsertion of these items. \n\nFinally, I would like to emphasize that this complaint is not about avoiding responsibility for any legitimate debts but about ensuring that only legally verified and properly validated information is reported. The presence of unverifiable data creates unnecessary harm, and the law clearly requires its removal. \n\nFor these reasons, I am respectfully requesting that the CFPB investigate the matter, require full compliance with all statutory provisions, and ensure that my consumer file reflects only accurate, verified, and lawfully reported information.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T23:27:50.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17183045","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-12T23:20:05.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>have</em> sent written <em>disputes</em>, requested validation, and asked for audit trails. I <em>have</em> even cited the relevant sections of the FCRA and FDCPA in each letter, including FCRA 602A, 607B, 609 ( a ), 611 ( a ), and 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), as well as FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and 809 ( b ). My intent was to give each bureau and furnisher every opportunity to <em>correct</em> or validate the <em>disputed</em> data before I escalated the <em>issue</em> further."]},"sort":[10.656379,"17183045"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":70,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":70}]}},"product":{"doc_count":70,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":5},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Reverse mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":12}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":11}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":8,"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":7},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":4},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Medical","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":3},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":2},{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Consumer Loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Vehicle loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":70,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":7},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":8,"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":4},{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"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":4},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":2},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":5},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Overcharged for something you did purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":3},{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"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":2},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Disclosure verification of debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Right to dispute notice not received","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged too much interest","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem getting a card or closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble closing card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with paying off the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":70,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":70}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":70,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":52},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":12},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":6}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":70,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":70}]}},"company":{"doc_count":70,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":8},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"SLM CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":2},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Brock & Scott, PLLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Continental Finance Company, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Corp Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Data Mortgage Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"EOS Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rithm Capital Corp.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"United PanAm Financial Corp.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":70,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MO","doc_count":9},{"key":"TX","doc_count":8},{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"GA","doc_count":5},{"key":"SC","doc_count":4},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":3},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"IN","doc_count":3},{"key":"MA","doc_count":3},{"key":"VA","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"TN","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":70,"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":30},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":70,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":10},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":3}]}}},"_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":[10.656379,"17183045"],"3":[8.468939,"3004669"]}}}