{"took":147,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":19,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3180709","_score":17.728056,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX claimed that I owed them {$180.00} due to clerical errors on their part, even though I paid them in full in XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, they erroneously gave me a {$80.00} refund on a XXXX XXXX. I called them to report this error, and they removed the balance from this card. A month later, I got another statement from XXXX claiming I owed them {$180.00} for XX/XX/XXXX, even though all statements after XX/XX/XXXX showed no balance. The attached statements tell the story of this {$180.00} charge mysteriously appearing in XX/XX/XXXX, after a mystery {$80.00} credit was issued in XX/XX/XXXX. Note that I closed my account in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nMy account was sent to collections with Credit Protection Association, where I was continually harassed via phone calls. I got sick of the harassment, so I paid the {$180.00} just so they would stop. However, I was not aware that a fraudulent entry would stay on my credit reports. \n\nDuring this entire time, I spent countless hours talking with CPA & XXXX, explaining what was going on, and disputing this amount owed. Neither company attempted to investigate this error.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-03-15T13:45:49.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"132XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3180709","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Credit Protection Association, L.P.","date_received":"2019-03-15T12:18:53.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["During this entire time, I spent countless hours talking with CPA & XXXX, explaining what was going on, and <em>disputing</em> this <em>amount</em> owed. Neither company attempted to investigate this error."]},"sort":[17.728056,"3180709"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1300278","_score":17.2717,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I obtained a payoff amount by phone on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX @ XXXX which was higher than the payoff amount that was calculated. They could not explain the difference. Coincidently the difference is the same amount that I had disputed earlier and had been resolved in my favor. I paid off the amount due as stated on the loan statement and disputed the difference. They have continued to add interest and late payment charges on this disputed amount and after numerous letters and forwarding them all of my cancelled checks for XXXX, XXXX and XXXX and including a spread sheet that shows the balance going down after the resolution in my favor on the unsubstantiated charges and then jumping back up by the same amount just a couple of months later.I have been mailing, phoning and even went to the bank to get an explanation. After almost a full year the only response I have received is \" It does n't look right. I will check into it '' from the local branch manager and XXXX letter in XXXX saying they were looking into it. There has still been no attempt to justify the charges. \nThey have made repeated charges for which they could make no justification since taking over this account from XXXX XXXX. In XXXX they charged late fees when I had cancelled checks showing that I had paid on time. They initially claimed XXXX late payment back years before they took over which I paid, Than they mysteriously found more late payments from when XXXX had the account that XXXX never made reference too and tried to claim them. When I threatened to report this to the banking authorities they resolved the amount in my favor. A couple of months later the same charges re-appeared and again I could obtain no valid explanation.","date_sent_to_company":"2015-03-25T15:59:29.000Z","issue":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","sub_product":"Conventional fixed mortgage","zip_code":"70058","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1300278","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2015-03-25T15:59:28.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I obtained a payoff <em>amount</em> by phone on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX @ XXXX which was higher than the payoff <em>amount</em> that was calculated. They could not explain the difference. Coincidently the difference is the same <em>amount</em> that I had <em>disputed</em> earlier and had been resolved in my favor. I paid off the <em>amount</em> due as stated on the loan <em>statement</em> and <em>disputed</em> the difference."]},"sort":[17.2717,"1300278"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2093836","_score":16.428238,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"American Express lost its business relationship with XXXX, and the consumer was forced into doing business with XXXX moving forward. Prior to this merge I had a dispute that was submitted with American Express against a merchant that could not deliver ( after multiple opportunities ) on what I contracted them to provide. After providing American Express the information in the dispute and a short period of time, my account was credited the disputed amount and the matter closed. A month later my relationship with American Express ended with the end of their XXXX arrangement. A few months later and with my XXXX card this disputed amount mysteriously appeared on my statement! This was not a charge that was authorized on my XXXX card! It was a charge on my American Express card and the matter had been closed, as well as, my account with American Express was closed. Because of the account closure I was unable to discuss this fraudulent charge on my XXXX with American Express, I was directed to talk to XXXX. I have been back and forth dealing with a closed dispute with XXXX and a fraudulent charge that was NOT authorized by me. I have explained to XXXX that this is XXXX separate accounts, and no one is authorized to put charges on my card except for me the authorized user of this card! XXXX would like me to believe that the businesses merged and my account is with XXXX and that XXXX just took it over from XXXX, NOT American Express ; nonsense! Credit card relationships are unique to that credit card provider. American Express, and XXXX are separate business entities with separated agreements and terms and conditions. When American Express closed the account my relationship with them ended on that day. Any past disputed charges should be between American Express, the merchant, and myself ; not between a new credit card provider and a past closed dispute. PLEASE HELP!!!","date_sent_to_company":"2016-09-26T17:56:45.000Z","issue":"Sale of account","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"92612","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2093836","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2016-09-02T20:26:38.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A few months later and with my XXXX card this <em>disputed</em> <em>amount</em> <em>mysteriously</em> <em>appeared</em> on my <em>statement</em>! This was not a charge that was authorized on my XXXX card! It was a charge on my American Express card and the matter had been closed, as well as, my account with American Express was closed. Because of the account closure I was unable to discuss this fraudulent charge on my XXXX with American Express, I was directed to talk to XXXX."]},"sort":[16.428238,"2093836"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1732126","_score":16.281763,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"First Pay Pal Credit has no idea what they are doing when refunds hit the account. I have sent in XXXX disputes which each one they corrected their errors of not removing the refund from my promotions due. When it comes to disputing a charge I disputed a {$110.00} hotwire charge transaction date XXXX/XXXX/XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. After XXXX letters to pay pal credit I just received an email today [ and attached ] that they finally got around to opening my dispute for the {$110.00} XXXX charge of 4 mo prior ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? There are currently XXXX charges on my account that I never purchased. The charge they say and date they give there is no charge of that amount on my monthly statements. It is really scary how they function. If I did not make the purchase and the purchase is not appearing on my statement how could they say I owe the amount they indicate. In addition they never disclose the Merchant the charge was made with? When did that become a secret. I have always paid on time XXXX A plus record however I told them after 6 months back and forth them correcting a multitude of their errors that until they correct my account I will not pay any more as they will put the payments towards charges that ARE NOT MINE. I am attaching the email received by Pay pal credit XXXX/XXXX/XXXX XXXX finally after XXXX faxes to them they finally opened up my dispute i requested on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$110.00} merchant hotwire [ unbelievable ] I have also attached the final fax dispute to them detailing the XXXX remaining charges that are not mine and why. and the XXXX charges that are mine. which when corrected will give me a correct balance due of {$2700.00} not {$4900.00} as they incorrectly state. I have reported this to the credit bureaus completed fraud affidavits on these charges and sent all this documentation to PayPal credit and they still refuse to remove even though these charges never appeared on my statements. Lastly for each of the remaining XXXX charges that are not mine I have attached my statement showing NO WHERE is there a charge for the indicated amount for any merchant at all. I have never dealt with this I do n't know how they defraud the public but will not defraud me. PLEASE help and after YOU REVIEW THE DOCUMENTATION LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING FURTHER THANK YOU SO MUCH Happy New Year! I have attached XXXX. Attachment XXXX of XXXX is my final dispute sent to them detailing the charges that are mine and the XXXX charges they placed onto my promotional purchase list due them although i never made any purchase for these amounts so attachment # XXXX is each statement that includes the charge dates the state for the XXXX charges and I defy you to find any charge at all for the amounts they say. Again they refuse to disclose the merchant which does n't matter as I never made and there are no charges in the amounts they state. Its a no brainer. Thank you from the my heart for your help. I am on the verge of a nervous breakdown. To summarize attachment # 1 the XXXX charges with no merchant they say i owe and they mysteriously placed on my account even though no charge purchase ever posted to my account for these amounts are as follows : XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$710.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$860.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$430.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$240.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$270.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$180.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$710.00} and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for {$410.00}. So attachment # 2will show you my statements that include these above XXXX dates to show you these charges never appeared ever on my account so they can not be mine. Thank you Attachment XXXX contains XXXX statements under purchases and adjustments to see my purchases none of them are the XXXX above that are not mine hence they are additional of many errors but these XXXX left they refuse to remove.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-01-07T23:37:35.000Z","issue":"Billing disputes","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"350XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1732126","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2016-01-07T23:37:35.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The charge they say and date they give there is no charge of that <em>amount</em> on my monthly <em>statements</em>. It is really scary how they function. If I did not make the purchase and the purchase is not <em>appearing</em> on my <em>statement</em> how could they say I owe the <em>amount</em> they indicate. In addition they never disclose the Merchant the charge was made with? When did that become a secret."]},"sort":[16.281763,"1732126"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3755443","_score":13.636696,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I was a loyal XXXX customer for over 12 years having a one time, 10 lines on the account. Despite being laid-off twice, I never, ever fell behind on a single payment ( or any other account for that matter ). Due to XXXX  poor service and overcharges, we began cancelling lines in XX/XX/XXXX with the last line being cancelled on or about XX/XX/XXXX. I asked several times starting in XXXX, if there was a balance and was told no. We closed in good standing with our autopay on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we had another auto-pay of {$110.00} ( after the account had been closed ). This charge was for the wrong device ( XXXX XXXX ) on line ( XXXX XXXX XXXX which had a fully-paid XXXX XXXX. Statement shows {$0.00} balance. \n\nFor background, I did purchase a XXXX XXXX with a off promotion exclusively for line XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The device was paid in full in XX/XX/XXXX, but XXXX continued to charge as if it were regular price. XXXX actually over-charged me {$240.00}. When XXXX called me, I explained the situation but they still sent me to collections. This is a scam by XXXX. \n\nI received a call from XXXX XXXX and a letter for them dated XX/XX/XXXX, for an amount of {$140.00}. I explained the situation, that I disputed the charge, and to have XXXX call me directly. I never heard back from them or XXXX. \n\nI received a call from XXXX XXXX and a letter from them dated XX/XX/XXXX, for an amount of {$440.00}. I explained the situation, and that I disputed the charge. Never heard back from them. \n\nThen, I received a call from XXXX XXXX XXXX and a letter from them dated XX/XX/XXXX, for an amount of {$150.00}. Again, I explained the situation, that I disputed the charge, and to have XXXX call me directly. I never heard back from them or XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX had the charge listed on my credit report. \n\nI once again dispute this charge and I am confident this charge is in error. I am requesting debt validation with a full payment history, copy of all notes on the account, and why the charge mysteriously appeared over 3 months after I announced that I was cancelling service and almost 2 months after the account was closed. \n\nI further request to have the collection account promptly removed from my credit report. \n\nThank you. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-07-21T07:59:02.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"78253","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3755443","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Kriya Capital, LLC","date_received":"2020-07-21T03:24:05.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I explained the situation, that I <em>disputed</em> the charge, and to have XXXX call me directly. I never heard back from them or XXXX. \n\nI received a call from XXXX XXXX and a letter from them dated XX/XX/XXXX, for an <em>amount</em> of {$440.00}. I explained the situation, and that I <em>disputed</em> the charge. Never heard back from them. \n\nThen, I received a call from XXXX XXXX XXXX and a letter from them dated XX/XX/XXXX, for an <em>amount</em> of {$150.00}."]},"sort":[13.636696,"3755443"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2370123","_score":13.324729,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This is regarding the Macy 's store credit card miss handling of payments made to the account by Macys. On XXXX made purchase in store using the credit card ending in XXXX and on the same day made cash payment in store for the same amount. I have the receipts for both purchase and payment both showing the account number correctly. However, Macys has somehow applied the purchase and payment to XXXX different accounts separately showing the as if we owe Macys a payment. Not knowing this I remained under the impression that there is no outstanding balance to pay until I kept receiving automated system dialed calls asking me to call back regarding an important business matter. I made the call into Macys customer service on XX/XX/XXXX when they have mentioned that they have misapplied the payment to wrong account and they will correct it and my balance owed is XXXX. At this time I have looked at my statement for this account which showed a debit balance on my account as if I have an amount to be refunded to me. So after talking to customer service and based on what they have suggest to me that this will be corrected and I do not have to worry. \n\nBut surprisingly they have posted series of wrong transactions to my account mysteriously with the amount totaling to double what I have already paid and showing that I now owe them money. But did only realize these incorrect transactions on my account again when I started receiving automated calls from Macys again. So this time I tried to keep calling them and keep reporting and requesting to correct the situation. I have tried to explain and beg them to do some research on their side as to what happened and find the details in vein but they appeared to not committed to resolve this issue. Every time I call, a different representative will answer the call and I explain them again time and time again. But they do not seems to have any clue as to what is happening and never resolved. Every time I called they mentioned that they will open a dispute but I keep receiving calls from the collection agents in the meantime. Unfortunately, every time I call them only to find out no dispute was opened and there were no notes to that effect and I request dispute to be opened again. \nThe last time I called them on XX/XX/XXXX and talked to the customer service supervisors explaining the situation and requesting again to look into what is happening. Instead of investigating into this issue they have neither communicated any outcome of the dispute nor resolved the issue. To make things more worse for me I kept receiving collection calls hundreds of times and make my life even miserable with they reported this to the credit bureaus affecting the my credit negatively and kept adding the late fee and finance charges on my account. This is really troubling and adversely affecting my work and family having to deal with these issues despite me making the payment timely and did not owe any amount at all to Macys. \nI am attaching the","date_sent_to_company":"2017-03-03T23:13:16.000Z","issue":"Delinquent account","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"20148","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2370123","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2017-03-03T23:13:15.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At this time I have looked at my <em>statement</em> for this account which showed a debit balance on my account as if I have an <em>amount</em> to be refunded to me. So after talking to customer service and based on what they have suggest to me that this will be corrected and I do not have to worry. \n\nBut surprisingly they have posted series of wrong transactions to my account <em>mysteriously</em> with the <em>amount</em> totaling to double what I have already paid and showing that I now owe them money."]},"sort":[13.324729,"2370123"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6431072","_score":11.635923,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX, XXXX I checked my credit reports on all 3 credit bureau websites. I noticed that XXXX and Equifax both had a random debt collection on my report. Below are the details of that debt : [ Collection Agency - XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX TX XXXX, ( XXXX ) XXXX Original Creditor Name - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX I I Date Assigned - XX/XX/XXXX Amount Owed- XXXX  Status Date - XX/XX/XXXX Status - UNPAID Balance Date - XX/XX/XXXX Account Designator Code XXXX XXXX  Account Number - # # # # # # # # # # # XXXX Creditor Classification - RENTAL_OR_LEASING Date of First Delinquency - XX/XX/XXXX ] I have NEVER been contacted by the listed debt collection agency for this debt and it is impossible this debt is even mine. Based on the information above, the debt appears to be for a rental unit in PA some time in XXXX. I have been living and working full time in CA since XXXX. I have owned 2 properties here since XXXX. I have no reason to go rent another random apartment in PA in XXXX. \n\nXXXX removed this collection from my report after I disputed it with them, however Equifax, for reasons as mysterious as the origins of the Universe, claimed that they have verified this debt with the collector and it is in fact mine ( but did not provide me any proof or reasoning for this decision ). They gave several options going forward : 1. I could contact the debt collector myself -- I find this unsatisfactory as I do not know them, I do not want to know them, I do not know why they filed this collection on my credit report and I do not want them to be able to harass me in any way.\n\n2. I could add a statement to my credit report -- based on what I have read, no creditor will even pay attention to this, so what's the point.\n\n3. I can send them additional documentation -- they did not mention what type of documentation, so I'm not really sure what they want here. I can substantiate my residency in CA with property tax statements, tax returns, etc, but I don't think that will stop them from claiming I could ALSO have rented an apartment in PA, you know, just for funsies. I think they should be sending ME documentation on why they think I was renting in PA. If they did somehow verify this, then I need a copy of these documents so that I can go file an identity theft report with my local police station! \n4. Write a complaint to the CFPB -- so here I am. Honestly, I don't really know if anything will happen with this, but at least I got to rant about how ridiculous this situation is.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-12T08:34:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"94087","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6431072","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-01-12T07:43:15.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX removed this collection from my report after I <em>disputed</em> it with them, however Equifax, for reasons as <em>mysterious</em> as the origins of the Universe, claimed that they have verified this debt with the collector and it is in fact mine ( but did not provide me any proof or reasoning for this decision ). They gave several options going forward : 1."]},"sort":[11.635923,"6431072"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6912728","_score":8.336775,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I have had a First Access BankXXXX XXXX XXXX  credit card for a few years. Over the past few months, I've been trying to pay down the balance at $ XXXX ( my credit limit is only {$300.00} ) to pay off this card and move on. Unfortunately, I chose to receive my statements online at some point and have not paid as close attention to the account as should have happened. However, I believe I did receive an email notification about my statement being available on XX/XX/XXXX. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my balance was {$300.00}! Over the limit. And my payments had been received. Nor have I used this card for many months. In any case, I immediately went onto the First Access website and looked up the instructions for reporting fraud. The instructions stated that I would fill out a fraud affidavit form on their site and then fax it to their fraud department. I filled out the form, although there were not enough spaces for all the fraud I had found. I was a bit apprehensive about this product since there have been at least two occasions in the past where I found fraud on my account, went through this process, and never received any response from the company. I attached a copy of one of these fraud affidavits from XX/XX/XXXX. \nAfter 48 hours passed without me receiving an acknowledgment of my affidavit, I called customer service, who put me through to the fraud dispute department, which has an unlisted, unpublished phone number. I did speak with someone and followed it up with an email I sent on their website ( which has since mysteriously disappeared ). I believe the email was in response to spending over 2 hours on the phone with someone who ( a ) knew nothing about my affidavit as no one had recorded it and ( b ) went through every fraudulent charge I had found dating back to XX/XX/XXXX. Every transaction I reported was met with a deep sigh and a voice asking, \" Is that everything NOW? '' The woman to whom I spoke, whose name is unknown to me, told me that it would take 30-90 days for the fraud department to `` investigate '' my claim, and my account would NOT be adjusted with any provisional credit until that time. I tried to explain that that was called a \" permanent '' credit, not a provisional one and that I would be paying money I did not owe. After the person I spoke with explained that this was this \" rule '' and nothing could be done about it, I sent my email through their website ; the only way to send them an email is they do not list an email address in customer support at all. In the letter, I explained that I had just had a rash of identity theft involving XXXX for the fourth or fifth time in the last three years and that every credit card I owned and my bank accounts had all suffered a loss. I further explained that I had already filled out fraud reports with every company and had received a provisional credit, which had become permanent credit within 48 hours of my report, as XXXX did not fight the charges in any of the cases and returned every dime to all of my accounts. I also expressed my concern that the uninterested-sounding woman to whom I had spoken had even reported all my charges and that by the next day, I expected a complete list of every incident for my records, along with a summation of when the credit would be received, the company 's timeline and plan for any investigation and that the card be terminated so that no one else could use such. I added my personal feelings that this company, knowing I was a XXXX American, was trying to \" appease '' me while doing nothing, as had happened in the past, as they assumed I would not have the resources to fight them. I added that their behavior was illegal under the A.D.And if that was the case. I thought my letter had achieved its goals when I received a phone call from someone at First Access the next morning. This was the first time they had ever communicated by phone. I was assured that they were sending out a new affidavit of fraud that day which I was to sign and send back. Not every single incident of fraud I had reported was on this piece of paper. However, every charge from XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  to XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  was listed. I was assured that once I signed the document, the case would then \" begin. '' Since this was now XX/XX/XXXX, I asked why the case hadn't started on XX/XX/XXXX, when they received my affidavit. I received no satisfactory answer, but I was told that I would receive my transitional credit within 7-10 business days. However, the full investigation \" could '' take up to 90 days, and in the meantime, I would not be charged any monthly fees, interest, etc. In addition, I would not have to make another monthly payment until I had my new card, which was to have been sent that day, and I had a total amount that I owed minus interest, monthly fees, etc. The man I spoke to agreed to my requests, and thus, I signed the affidavit, which is attached hereto. Today, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a reminder that my monthly payment was due to First Access on XX/XX/XXXX, with a minimum payment due of {$41.00}. I went online and was disturbed to see that my account was in the same condition as it had been on XX/XX/XXXX, the day the affidavit was signed, plus monthly and interest fees were added. I then made another phone call to First Access. Since apparently, their dispute department was no longer open at XXXX XXXX. P.S.T., I could only talk to a customer service representative, who looked up my account and let me know that ( a ) there was no report of any fraud investigation ; ( b ) my card which I had already sliced up was still open so more fraud could be committed and ( c ) that the \" rules '' were, I had to wait 90 days to get a credit if I was going to get one. Since there was no one more XXXX  to speak with, I let her know that I would be reporting all of this to your agency. She did not appear concerned, as I don't believe she knew about the CFPB, the A.D.A., or any other federal government acronym which could apply to our dispute. \n\nEven with their lack of notification of the total amount of fraud, looking at the affidavit, there are charges which total over {$100.00} and perhaps over {$150.00}. This may be a small amount, but when the card limit is {$300.00}, it's significant.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-02T03:45:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"85254","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6912728","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC","date_received":"2023-05-02T02:36:07.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She did not <em>appear</em> concerned, as I don't believe she knew about the CFPB, the A.D.A., or any other federal government acronym which could apply to our <em>dispute</em>. \n\nEven with their lack of notification of the total <em>amount</em> of fraud, looking at the affidavit, there are charges which total over {$100.00} and perhaps over {$150.00}. This may be a small <em>amount</em>, but when the card limit is {$300.00}, it's significant."],"issue":["Problem with a purchase shown on your <em>statement</em>"]},"sort":[8.336775,"6912728"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3974288","_score":7.893524,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is providing accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. \n\nXXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. \n\nXXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XX/XX/XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgement of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSo, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. \n\nFor example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims WF is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, WF is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIf this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. \n\nThe somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX XXXX response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. \n\nThese practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. \n\nAt the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAny reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date WF has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that WF will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. \n\nOn one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses WF compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-25T09:23:16.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3974288","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-11-25T01:10:19.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAny reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.893524,"3974288"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3974282","_score":7.893524,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is providing accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. \n\nXXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. \n\nXXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgement of the due date of the XXXX-XXXX  ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSo, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. \n\nFor example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and Equifax. This is in obvious contradiction to what XXXX XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIf this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. \n\nThe somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of XXXX and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. \n\nThese practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. \n\nAt the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XX/XX/XXXX, Exquifax, and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAny reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. \n\nOn one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, XXXX XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX XXXX the CFPB XXXX enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-25T09:23:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3974282","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2020-11-25T04:23:20.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XX/XX/XXXX, Exquifax, and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAny reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.893524,"3974282"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6473432","_score":7.7544384,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I was given information by Volkswagen Credit that they had made a processing error during the billing cycle of XX/XX/XXXX of which led to a payment extension that appears to have been claimed as accidental by the company. This was in response to my challenge of inaccurate credit reporting where Volkswagen Credit reported XXXX and XXXX of XXXX as 30 days late and XXXX and XXXX of XXXX as 60 days late after I requested and was promised a Covid relief for the months of XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX of XXXX. Within this challenge and/or complaint, I gave the amortization schedule produced by the company that downloaded and saved on XX/XX/XXXX directly from my online account as proof that Volkswagen Credit was not correct in their statement and credit reporting of the loan being extended from the original XXXX term to a XXXX term after payment extensions were granted for the account- of which would help prove my claim that XXXX payment extensions were granted to me and not the XXXX as claimed by the company. This documentation was not addressed by Volkswagen during their investigation even though imperative information such as the term of the loan being reported for 79 months was made by them. Just as the processing error for billing that somehow according to Volkswagen Credit happened during the processing for a billing statement during the month of XXXX of XXXX that granted an extension was not discovered until recently even though my first dispute of the late payments reported on my credit report happened in the early months of XXXX. Either the term of the loan is 79 months or 78 months, but neither can be determined due to what is apparently more errors in reporting conflicting information on my account. Furthermore, a refund of {$95.00} of accumulated finance charges were returned to the account by Volkswagen due to the alleged error of extending the payment extension into the month of XXXX of XXXX - a number of charges that has not been disclosed to me and I have no idea if this was added to the principal and has accumulated interest charges, much less the amount of those charges. Considering that the final scheduled payment on the amortization schedule is almost three times the monthly payment without any explanation of why the payment is that much or what additional charges were added to it- it is imperative that a review of my account is conducted with explanations given for those charges. These are at least two possible mistakes that have had a negative impact on my ability to make decisions on how to best handle my account of which has caused and continues to cause substantial financial harm- of which a {$95.00} unexplained finance charge does not cover in righting this harm. Indeed, managing this loan account has been exceedingly difficult due to lack of communication, conflicting information, and even delays of requested documents- some that have apparently disappeared and had to be verified with a letter after a failure to produce those requested copies of original documents for the account. Not to mention the convenience for the company to accept or deny unsigned documents as it best favors them. This convenience also extends to ignoring requests to investigate unauthorized charges made against my account that happened on and or about XX/XX/XXXX. It was enough for them to leave the situation as a mysterious person using the automated system and apparently, they seem to lack records to verify the number that called in around that date to make an automated payment even though this unauthorized charge to my back account caused a great deal of financial harm due to the subsequent late payment reporting on my credit report. They also seem to have ignored the established and primary pattern of payment methods for the account and that my personal bank account was only used once prior to that unauthorized transaction and the primary bank accounts used to pay on the account came from the primary account holder, my ex-husband on the account and his mother- just as the ignored the fact that the account had not ever been more than 30 and more late for almost two years. When the mother of the primary account holder arranged for another payment but had to call in twice after being a victim of fraud to first warn that the second payment would not go through and then had to have her bank account from XXXX XXXX closed due to being a victim of fraud- they also seem to have ignored the good faith to make payments on the account and reported a 30-day late payment on my credit report. Even after they requested the letter to prove that we were telling the truth. These are not the only incidents and issues I have had with Volkswagen Credit. It is completely unfair to me that I am being treated at worse as if I am making things up about the account and at best as if I am the one who is at fault due to my own mistakes about the account even as the company has made multiple billing mistakes and seems to have appropriate record keeping skills that protects my original documents for my account. It is completely unfair to me that I have to repeatedly ask for the same documents only to be told things such as the document has already been given to me or that they can not give me copies of the original documents- especially those documents that could prove that I am telling the truth. It is unfair to be the victim of a processing error of an extended payment for the month of XXXX of XXXX that suggests that I had been given the three months of Covid relief that I desperately needed - especially after losing money from loss of gig work and then finally catching XXXX in XXXX of XXXX when I was too sick to engage in any activity other than attempting to heal from XXXX. There is no reasonable way for me to foresee a processing error that does not state the correct amount or correct date or other such issues - but an error that resulted in extending a payment that I had already requested and not knowing that it was an error and not the result of the three-month extension I requested. There is no reasonable manner for me to calculate and print my own amortization schedule with the company 's - even when it verifies that term of the loan is for 79 months - and there is no way for me to correct it even after bringing it to the attention of Volkswagen Credit. These are things that only Volkswagen can control, not me. It is not as if I can walk into their office and personally demand to check my own account and verify that the company is maintaining proper documentation and billing processing of my account. How many more errors and mistakes do I have to endure to ensure that I receive fair treatment from Volkswagen Credit that safeguards my account and does not punish me for extenuating circumstances or for their mistakes?","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-24T05:07:56.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30907","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6473432","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"VW Credit","date_received":"2023-01-24T03:51:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Just as the processing error for billing that somehow according to Volkswagen Credit happened during the processing for a billing <em>statement</em> during the month of XXXX of XXXX that granted an extension was not discovered until recently even though my first <em>dispute</em> of the late payments reported on my credit report happened in the early months of XXXX."]},"sort":[7.7544384,"6473432"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105361","_score":7.491069,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX and Equifax. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, Exquifax, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX XXXX the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:33:09.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105361","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:33:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XXXX, Exquifax, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.491069,"4105361"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105365","_score":7.4873786,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by Wells Fargo. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. \n\nNow, this mismanagement of account information by Wells Fargo is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX  claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledgment of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims WF is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, WF is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  and 0XXXX XXXX XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XXXX XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR  to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XXXX XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date WF has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that WF will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX claim that the clause excuses WF compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:23:03.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105365","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-01-30T19:43:58.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XXXX XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.4873786,"4105365"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105353","_score":7.4873786,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( 27th ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to Experian and XXXX This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 XXXX Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:33:09.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105353","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:33:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.4873786,"4105353"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105375","_score":7.486696,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. \n\nNow, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order XXXX and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB XXXX announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of XXXX and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX. Per CFPB consent order XXXX, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and Transunion, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with XXXX and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:23:13.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105375","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:23:07.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and Transunion, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.486696,"4105375"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4105327","_score":7.486696,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by Wells Fargo. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by Wells Fargo is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order XXXX and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( 27th ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of XXXX and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order XXXX, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with XXXX and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-30T20:32:59.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4105327","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-01-30T20:25:15.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[7.486696,"4105327"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4131633","_score":6.373602,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"In Wells Fargo 's response to complaints XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX } dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo instructs me to provide them with documentation of \" attendance '' of my internship activity. I supplied such documents as attachments to to complaint XXXX. Specifically, I supplied : 1 ) the image of myself with identification as an intern on the fellowship page, 2 ) W2 for XXXX listing the total sums earned over the summer internship for XXXX. Wells Fargo 's response to XXXX was : \" We have reviewed the documents you shared with regard to your internship forbearance request and regret to inform you that these documents are not sufficient to review your student loan account for an Internship/Residency or Fellowship forbearance. \" Wells Fargo provided no guidance on what type of documentation they would require to process and review such a request and what per their policy constitutes \" attendance at an internship activity. '' Wells Fargo willfully fails to understand that interns at a government facility are subject to the same rules governing the handling of UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO documents that may identify me with the internship. This applies to papers and emails I may generate, including communications between my internship supervisor, etc. Those practices help keep all of us safe. \n\nI would like to point out that if Wells Fargo allows internship forbearance requests over the phone, and if those requests follow the same format for in-school forbearance, then no documentation of the internship forbearance would have been required at the time of my internship and my information would be recorded. It is only now that Wells Fargo failed to make me aware that I was eligible for an internship forbearance that I am now subject to extra scrutiny. \n\nGiven the backdrop of the current XXXX pandemic, and Wells Fargo 's announcement of their intent to sell their student loan portfolio, no less during a time of economic despair for many, it seems likely that the consistent denials and stalling by Wells Fargo are tactics being employed to force my student loan into repayment so that their student loan portfolio looks that much better for ANY potential buyer of that portfolio. \n\nNow, I am attaching additional documentation proving that I was an intern at a government facility for both XXXX and XXXX. It shows that I was contractually obligated to conduct internship activities as a part of my fellowship program. Mainly, I am attaching the executed agreement between myself and my academic institution that indicates my agreement to participate in internship activities as a condition of my fellowship. Secondly, I am attaching two ( 2 ) pay-stubs from the first few weeks of my internship. Third, I am attaching a Letter of Intent from the DIRECTOR OF THE FACILITY that states specifically I was an intern for the summer of XXXX and that the facility intended to have me back for XXXX as an intern. Finally, I will reattach the W2, and the offer letters. \n\nNone of this behavior is new and a timeline of Wells Fargo 's behavior/ attempts to stall, fight, ignore forbearance request since XXXX of XXXX is hereafter. Furthermore, they have already admitted to furnishing inaccurate/incorrect information regarding my student loans to the credit reporting agencies. \n\nOn XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Ms. XXXX XXXX responded to complaint XXXX. Wells Fargo 's XXXX XX/XX/XXXX interim response was \" Wells Fargo needs additional time to research and respond to our customer '' In Ms. XXXX XXXX 's response she states : \" Please see the attached Bank response, '' and attaches a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response. To clarify my complaint ( not concern ) against Wells Fargo is because they have refused to give me forbearance options I was entitled to per their policies. That is for the periods of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, and the periods XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX I was an intern at a government research lab. Wells Fargo has a specific deferment program for internships. If Wells Fargo offers forbearance for internships, then equal protection requires them to offer that forbearance option as well -- they did not. The denial matters because Wells Fargo EFS subsequently denied my request for an in-school forbearance for periods XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX claiming that maximum in-school forbearance had been used. However, had Wells Fargo placed me in the internship forbearance, then the maximum amount of in-school forbearance time as granted XX/XX/XXXX would not have been exhausted, even if a manual review was conducted. Six ( 6 ) months of forbearance time would have been freed up from in-school forbearance and I would thus have been able to obtain an in-school forbearance thru XX/XX/XXXX. Combined with the forbearance offered commensurate with the CARES Act, I would have been able to push the payments out until XX/XX/XXXX, which was my initial request in XX/XX/XXXX that WF denied. The scheme here is quite obvious. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX published an article quotes Wells Fargos website as stating beginning on XX/XX/XXXX, only customers with an outstanding balance on a Wells Fargo Private Student Loan are eligible to be borrowers on a new private student loan for the XXXX academic year. In the article XXXX XXXX, a spokesperson for Wells Fargo is quoted as saying Wells Fargo has decided to narrow its student-lending focus. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX published an article stating that Wells Fargo is exploring a sale of its corporate-trust unit that could fetch more than {$1.00} XXXX and is considering whether to find a buyer for its student-loan portfolio, according to people familiar with the matter. The article goes on to say Wells Fargo holds a {$10.00} XXXX student-loan portfolio. The bank said earlier this month that it had notified customers of its planned exit from the student-lending business. As my payments began in XXXX of XXXX, WF is reporting adverse credit information to compel me, a student of non-traditional age, with a documented XXXX  XXXX, from a minority background, to obtain employment during a pandemic so that they can offset the XXXX  XXXX interest income losses of 19 percent. By forcing students into repayment during a pandemic they are attempting to hedge their losses due in the low-interest rate environment while they seek ways to divest themselves of their XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dollar student loan portfolio during the economic crisis to mitigate any additional losses that may affect their bottom line post-pandemic due to economic damage caused by the pandemic. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX my account was placed into a forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by XXXXhirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is \" generated '' but never mailed by Wells Fargo. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by Wells Fargo is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to Wells Fargo complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date Wells Fargo has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that Wells Fargo is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, \" Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, \" our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, \" 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for Wells Fargo to be non-compliant with Consent Order XXXX and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while Wells Fargo did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. Again XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen dumb from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the twenty-seventh ( XXXX ) of each month. That is Wells Fargo is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, Wells Fargo is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX  and XXXX. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims WF is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, WF is supplying payment history claiming that I am XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, \" We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire Wells Fargo leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that Wells Fargo is in violation of XXXX and that Wells Fargo is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of XXXX, and outside what is permissible under statute, Wells Fargo will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that Wells Fargo is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, Wells Fargo is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because \" I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo appears not to want to do such. To date WF has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that WF will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, Wells Fargo is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses WF compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. Wells Fargo is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields Wells Fargo from the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. Wells Fargo is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with XXXX and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) XXXX. Wells Fargo appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-11T01:20:41.000Z","issue":"Struggling to repay your loan","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4131633","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-02-10T23:36:10.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Can't temporarily delay making payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Each time I attempt to <em>dispute</em> this fact with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Wells Fargo 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in Wells Fargo 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. Wells Fargo <em>appears</em> not to want to do such."]},"sort":[6.373602,"4131633"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4016799","_score":6.2947774,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : And as such, this complaint is in regards to and against the entity of discover credit card Services for deceptive advances for which was carried out against me on numerous occasions. Moreover, in the first week of XXXX of 2020, a litany of misleading and deeply convoluted information was relayed to me, surrounding the usages of cash advances by a slew of various female representatives in which caused serious mistrust against the representatives that showered me with unethical doings as well as against discover credit card entity in general. \n\nIn further, I was so concerned and was never compelled with such questionable information that I called into discover calling center to get meaningful answers in hopes satisfyingly and at such time I came in contact with a manager lady after repeated call-ins ... With this being on XXXX, XXXX, 2020, and after explaining my displeasures given the many generic and related porous information to where I advised this manager that I'm trending towards closing out my account due to the many, and extremely poor customer servicing across the board etc. \n\nIn turn, this manager responded to me by saying, \" I can offer you a one year 0 %, APR, starting today, that way you'll stay with us. '' I then asked her if such deeds includes the same for balance transfers, and she stated no. '' However, I was still on my current 0 %, APR, which carried an 18, month period subsequently speaking. \n\nFurthermore, I had no interest charged to my account from the previous months until in XXXX, and through XXXX of 2020, which flatly defeats the acts and purposes of such manager 's doings stemming from XXXX, XXXX, 2020, and in which is inane at best, and counter-productive as many would say undoubtedly speaking. So, after detecting this reckless and comical doings ... I immediately raised these concerns to discover representative and was told that, \" it's an XX/XX/2020, dispute for {$89.00}, for XXXX XXXX XXXX, that I had reported as fraudulent charges responsively. '' More broadly, I was further told by discover 's fraud team that XXXX XXXX XXXX, had refunded the monetary charges, and then was also told and blamed by means of the castings of aspersions surrounding a charge that I had not authorized knowingly, as I had filed a separate complaint to such hotel corporates office with a strong reproachable deed in their survey as well regarding their system charging me after I had long checked out, but yet I was charged for an additional day recklessly. \n\n\nThis happenings I reported immediately to discover 's fraud personnel 's and was told that, \" they'd immediately closed my previous account ending in # : XXXX, and then was told that I'll be receiving a new card ending in # : XXXX in a few days as a result. '' In further, these executions by discover 's card services was often penalized against me, by again, means of the castings of aspersions dismissively and even to this day from a XXXX, who represents discover 's corporate executive office who apparently works as an advocate. \n\nMore broadly speaking, I've never checked my statements because I'm one that's seriously meticulous whenever it comes to the handling of my finances and moreover, never had a reason to as I was still ongoingly on a 0 %, APR, but discover credit card services repeatedly and advancingly had mysterious and inconceivable agendas all along, and furthertively gave me misguided informations surrounding these matters of interest charges, and along with repeated convoluted deeds supporting these chronicles representing my account as a whole in general. \n\nFurthermore, and roughly three weeks ago, when I finally and officially realized that my dollar amount was decreased after having a balance of {$1700.00}, as a pay-off, I received a text for the first time to check my account transaction, and this led me to the realization that discover was inconceivably taking advantage of me by the chargings of underlying interest 's in which further supports a predator type approach, but not only that it also supports the sickening deeds of ethical fallacies, rationale fallacies, extortionate doings, and the additional deeds of major monkey businesses across the board. \n\nProgressively speaking, this troubling business conduct easily could or can be deemed as verbal trickeries abusively, which further supports non-de-minimis approaches. In essence, these acts that has been committed by Discover Credit Card Services, are nothing but phony and advancingly business conducts in which I whole-heartedly believe without bias or prejudice supporting the notions that other consumers has been dealt these blows underlyingly speaking. \n\nAdditionally, I will fight discover in court if I have to especially knowing that I've made countless reports regarding the many reported and badly misguided informations that has reared its ugly head continuously to this day etc. And even more, these reports supports otherly times un-biasly speaking to where most of their representative concurred in support of my sincere reports in my displeasing feedbacks from otherly representatives that displayed a wash-fulls of incomplete, and bias information disturbingly, but not only that roughly three weeks ago ... \" A female representative put me on hold three times and then came back saying, this makes no sense as I'm not seeing anything that would validate any interest charges on your account. '' In addition, this same female representative alerted her supervisor that also deemed the matter similarly, and then stated for her to transfer me to their fraud department with an incoming male representative at such time that stated he can not assist me, and further stated that he only assist for fraud situations, '' and with this extension being all for naught non-resourcefully. \n\nFurthertively speaking, I was forced to escalate the matter independently due to the many failures differently speaking, and then came in contact with a XXXX as mentioned aforementionly that gave me further questionable deeds on XX/XX/2020, and when she called in on such day, XXXX appeared as if she didn't know how to relay the terrible fallacies to support her unethical so called findings as I had to help her out to get started on her alleged and furthertives of reckless and deranged, and toxicated fallacies to further support her entity 's alibis etc. And such actions by XXXX was met with rightful reproachable deeds of mine with the strong notion that everything that was relayed to me, would be challenged at every lawyerly levels, and with aided and governmental alliances. \n\nIn my closing out now, I'm urging for the CFPB, to share this complaint to other body of government that has oversight mechanisms, and in further, I would like for fines to be levied vigorously, as well as otherly rightful justice 's against discover credit card services as this entity deserves no slaps on the wrist, nor one that deserves a place in the banking and lending marketplace given their definitive acts of snares dangerously, and mean spiritedly. \n\nPlease note : I've attached six statement documents showcasing beyond from XXXX, and XXXX, as once again, my valid point showcases sincere deeds as they were no interest charges beyond those months before, and the same should be upheld forwardly speaking with the extended 0 %, APR, that was verbally granted given in early XXXX from a female manager. Therefore, XXXX 's, and others within her organization findings are flat out categorically full of underlying deceptivities at best etc. Again it's counter-productive, and defeats their collective doings inanely and across the board. Make it right discover entity or else face the consequences, and severe repercussions rightfully.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-16T11:51:23.000Z","issue":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"60613","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4016799","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2020-12-16T11:23:13.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["More broadly speaking, I've never checked my <em>statements</em> because I'm one that's seriously meticulous whenever it comes to the handling of my finances and moreover, never had a reason to as I was still ongoingly on a 0 %, APR, but discover credit card services repeatedly and advancingly had <em>mysterious</em> and inconceivable agendas all along, and furthertively gave me misguided informations surrounding these matters of interest charges, and along with repeated convoluted deeds supporting these chronicles"]},"sort":[6.2947774,"4016799"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3627356","_score":5.1046333,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am not sure if I am in the right category .... But here is what happened. \n\nI. Complaint 1 : Opening an Unauthorized PayPal Cash Plus Account, which Generated an Over {$3000.00} balance in the negative I had a PayPal account since XXXX. I was never aware that a PayPal Cash Plus account was opened for me by PayPal. PayPal can not tell me when the account was opened exactly and gives totally contradictory and conflicting information. One representative writes that the PayPal Cash Plus account was opened sometimes when I accepted a payment an kept it in PayPal Balance. Another PayPal representative writes that it was just a \" re-branding '' and no new account was opened ... \n\nSo it's confusing how and when the account was opened. \n\nI contacted PayPal again. I was told the account was opened for me without any affirmative actions taken by me and it was opened for me ( re-branded by existing account for me ) due to Federal Regulations, which required the change. Allegedly PayPal sent me an email, sometimes between XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX informing me about the change, which \" officially went into affect on XX/XX/XXXX ''. \n\nPayPal can not send me a copy of the email, any application, confirmation of acceptance, or contract regarding the terms and condition of my alleged PayPal Cash Plus Account, yet PayPal insist that the PayPal Cash Plus Account terms and conditions are binding on me. \n\nPayPal stated \" you did not have to apply. It was a rebranding based on if we had confirmed your identity already or not. It didn't change anything about your account beyond how we speak to your balance. It is now referred to as a Cash Plus Balance. Beyond that one change, nothing was changed. '' \" It isn't a brand new account. Think of it like a store that goes through a remodel. Fresh coat of paint and it's like a new store ''. \n\nYet another representative stated \" PayPal Cash accounts are for customers who wish to keep money in PayPal [ so it's not rebranding the already existing PayPal account ]. Customers using PayPal Cash accounts will have access to basic balance functionality, including the ability to shop with balance, send money to friends and family using balance, receive money into balance, and set up a Money Pool. PayPal Cash Plus accounts are eligible for additional features like the PayPal Cash Mastercard, receiving paychecks via direct deposit, and setting organization tools like Goals. This was a change that happened to all PayPal accounts as there was a new regulations set by the government that we ill need these type of accounts to maintain a balance. '' Another PayPal rep said \" The PayPal Cash account was created when a payment was received and the money was accepted and the option to keep the money in PayPal was chosen instead of transferring it a bank '' ( PayPal can not give me a date when did this allegedly happen ). \n\nOn PayPal 's own website, PayPal states \" Personal PayPal account holders also have the ability to get a PayPal Cash Plus account. You can get a PayPal Cash Plus account by applying for or enrolling in any of the features or products below : *Get the PayPal Cash Card Debit Mastercard ( or the PayPal Business Debit Mastercard ) ; *Set up direct deposit to  automatically add pay checks to balance ; *Set up Goals to manage money being held '' So it's neither rebranding, nor something you can accidentally create by keeping a balance on you PayPal account, but something you have to apply for by any of the three listed acts ... \n\nYet, PayPal insist : \" I have repeatedly informed you that I can not re-send an email from over a year ago. Your Cash Plus account was not \" created '', it was changed just given a new name based on the level of identity confirmation that you had completed ''. \n\nI am confused if I should be guided by PayPal 's statement to the public posted on PayPal 's website, but the facts are the followings none the less. I, admittedly, have never enrolled or applied for PayPal Cash Plus account. I, admittedly, do not have a PayPal Cash Card Debit Mastercard. I, admittedly, do not have a direct deposit to automatically add pay checks to balance. I, admittedly, did not set up Goals to manage money being held. \n\nYet, I have a PayPal Cash Plus account. \n\nI do not have a contract, yet PayPal insist that I am bind by the user agreement of a service I have never applied for and PayPal can not even resend me the alleged email, which triggered ( in one version of PayPal ) the opening of the PayPal Cash Plus account or pinpoint the transaction ( another version of PayPal ) through which I have created the PayPal Cash Plus account. There seemed to be a consensus that I have never applied to open the PayPal Cash Plus account. \n\nNow, this mysteriously opened PayPal Cash Plus account has an over {$3000.00} negative balance. \n\nThe PayPal Cash Plus account allegedly serves as a \" balance '' account. To use PayPal 's rep own words \" PayPal Cash accounts are for customers who wish to keep money in PayPal. Customers using PayPal Cash accounts will have access to basic balance functionality, including the ability to shop with balance, send money to friends and family using balance, receive money into balance, and set up a Money Pool ''. \n\nYet, there was a bill submitted by XXXX ( I don't have an XXXX  account and PayPal is a spinoff company of XXXX ), which bill was paid by PayPal immediately, without my consent, even though there was {$0.00} balance on by PayPal account and/or PayPal Cash Plus Account and none of the backup payment sources had sufficient funds to cover XXXX 's alleged bill. None the less, PayPal approved the transaction. \n\nMy PayPal Cash Plus account ( for which I have never applied, enrolled, etc. and was allegedly created for me for the sole purpose to keep positive balance on it which then I can use for different purposes ) has now a negative balance of over {$3000.00}. \n\nII. Complaint 2 : Unauthorized Collection Practices. \n\nWhen I wanted to dispute the charge, PayPal told me that \" On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  billed you for the {$3200.00} refund through a billing agreement set up with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. '' PayPal is not a collection company for XXXX. \n\nXXXX has to verify the charge. \n\nI do not have an XXXX account, hence I can not have a \" billing agreement '' with XXXX. If XXXX   can not validate the charge and I dispute the charge, PayPal should refund me the disputed amount and charge it only after validation or after a valid judgment by XXXX  against me regarding the dispute. \n\nFurther, and once again, I allegedly had a \" balance '' account with PayPal, which was \" automatically '' created for by by \" rebranding '' my existing PayPal personal account and could not have had a negative balance. \n\nPayPal should have refused the XXXX 's charge request as there was no money neither on my PayPal personal account, nor on my PayPal Cash Plus account, nor on any of the funding sources associated with my account. \n\nHow can I have a credit account with a negative balance with PayPal when I never applied for such? \n\nHow can I have a negative balance on a bill I dispute and never authorized? \n\nI don't thing that was CFPB 's requirement with what PayPal just complied with ... .. \n\nMoreover, before the account went into negative balance, I discovered that there was an \" auto-pay '' authorization for XXXX in my PayPal account ( among with other XXXX XXXX   companies, such as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc. ). I don't recall creating any of these so called \" autopay '' intentionally and not sure how they are created but let 's not get into that. Anyway, as soon I discovered XXXX  listed on \" autopay '' I removed XXXX. At the time there was no charge by XXXX  on my account. PayPal later claimed that the charge came before the \" autopay '' removal ( even though it did not appear on my account ). \n\nNonetheless, the \" autopay '' assumes automatic payments of valid charges. \n\nThis is not the case here. \n\nAgain, PayPal is not ( or at least not supposed to be ) the collection company for XXXX. When XXXX  can not validate a charge and I dispute the charge, it should be denied until final dispute resolution between the alleged creditor and the alleged debtor. \n\nPayPal also argue that the charge was as a result of XXXX 's resolution in favor of buyer, but again, ( 1 ) I do not have an XXXX  account ; ( 2 ) I did not agree to XXXX 's dispute resolution procedures ; ( 3 ) I did not agree to accept XXXX 's \" fact findings '' and I did not waived my Constitutional right to a jury trial in case of a civil dispute ; ( 4 ) there is no agreement between XXXX and me in any matter in any manner ; ( 5 ) I do not agree that XXXX  can bill me directly in case XXXX finds in buyer 's favor in a transaction I am not a part of ; ( 6 ) there is no billing or any other kind of agreement between XXXX and me so XXXX can not just \" bill '' me ; ( 7 ) I am the sole owner of my PayPal account ; ( 8 ) there is no judgment or arbitration award against me in connection with any claimed debt I allegedly owe to XXXX  ; ( 9 ) there no judgment or arbitration award which would state the amount I allegedly owe to XXXX  ; ( 10 ) there is no levy order by a Court with competent jurisdiction, which would authorize PayPal to accept the charge as valid over my objection ; ( 11 ) there is no levy order by a Court with competent jurisdiction which would authorize PayPal to withdraw or withheld money without my authorization from any of my accounts ; ( 12 ) PayPal is my financial company, owes me fiduciary duties, not to XXXX. PayPal can not just deduct, pardon me, create an account for me in order to enable PayPal to approve an unauthorized XXXX  charge. To add insult to injury, initially I was told that I can not even dispute the charge ( later I was allowed to file a dispute which was decided in less than 24 hours in XXXX 's favor ). \n\nLast but not least, Pay Pal stated to at least another PayPal account holder who opened the account in XXXX ( information can be provided to CFPB upon request ) that opening PayPal Cash or PayPal Cash account is not automatic and that one has to apply for a card and that card has to be linked to the person 's PayPal account in order to open a PayPal Cash Plus account. \n\nI believe CFPB should investigate this matter as ( 1 ) PayPal attempts to validate its unlawful actions ( opening PayPal Cash Plus accounts to existing users without the existing user 's knowledge or agreement and then bend and twist the facts to serve PayPal purposes, including but not limited to misstate the scope and purposes of a PayPal Cash Plus balance account ) citing CFPB 's regulations as cause ; ( 2 ) PayPal is not a collection company for XXXX, thus should not act like one, especially when a debt verification is requested by PayPal 's own customer. The charge was either an unauthorized charge, thus XXXX should prove it's validity ( assuming that PayPal is my financial institution ) or the PayPal customer should at least have a right for debt verification ( assuming that PayPal is XXXX 's collection agency ). PayPal admittedly ( confirmed it in writing ) did not even contact XXXX  regarding the transaction. Neither to validate the alleged charge nor to validate the alleged debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-04-28T21:31:44.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"91325","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3627356","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2020-04-28T21:19:10.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If XXXX   can not validate the charge and I <em>dispute</em> the charge, PayPal should refund me the <em>disputed</em> <em>amount</em> and charge it only after validation or after a valid judgment by XXXX  against me regarding the <em>dispute</em>. \n\nFurther, and once again, I allegedly had a \" balance '' account with PayPal, which was \" automatically '' created for by by \" rebranding '' my existing PayPal personal account and could not have had a negative balance."],"sub_issue":["Attempted to collect wrong <em>amount</em>"]},"sort":[5.1046333,"3627356"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":19,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":19}]}},"product":{"doc_count":19,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":8}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional fixed mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":19,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Billing disputes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Delinquent account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Sale of account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't temporarily delay making payments","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":19,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":19}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":16},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":19,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":19}]}},"company":{"doc_count":19,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Protection Association, L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kriya Capital, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"VW Credit","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":19,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MI","doc_count":8},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":19,"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":9}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":19,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}