{"took":276,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":14,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17363785","_score":20.698444,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding Chase Home XXXX mishandling of my mortgage application, illegal lack of disclosures, misrepresentation of fees, and failure to provide the required denial documentation under federal law. \n\n1. Loan Denied Without Required Written Adverse Action Notice Chase denied my mortgage three days before closing, yet I never received the mandatory written Adverse Action Notice explaining the reasons for denial. Chase now claims the notice was sent on XX/XX/XXXX, but I never received any such communication by mail or email. \n\nUnder ECOA ( Regulation B ), this written notice is required within 30 days. \nChases claim that the notice was sent without proof or delivery is unacceptable and appears to be a false statement to avoid compliance. \n\n2. Misrepresentation of Good Faith Funds & Email Evidence of Refund Promises I paid {$650.00} in Good Faith Funds at the start of the loan process. The Chase loan officer informed me clearly including over multiple emails that this amount was refundable if the loan did not proceed. \n\nI relied on that representation. \n\nDespite this, Chase is now refusing to return the funds. This contradicts what I was told, and Chase has refused to honor the information provided by their own loan officer.\n\n3. Chase Provided Contradictory Fee Information to Justify Keeping My Money Chase XXXX XXXX called me last week promising to send : A denial letter An itemized list of charges An explanation for the refusal to refund the Good Faith Funds They never sent any of these documents. \n\nInstead, today, I was told the appraisal cost over {$700.00} and the application fee was {$80.00}. These amounts were NEVER disclosed to me upfront. This is a violation of : TRID ( TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures ) Federal fee disclosure requirements I was never provided : A Loan Estimate showing these fees Any written disclosure showing a non-refundable application fee Any document showing the appraisal would cost $ XXXX This retroactive fee explanation appears fabricated and non-compliant. \n\n4. Appraisal Was Not Ordered Through an AMC ( Illegal Under AIR Rules ) I learned that Chase did not order the appraisal through an Appraisal Management Company ( AMC ), which is required under : Dodd-Frank Act Section 129E, and Appraiser Independence Requirements ( AIR ) A lender can not directly select or engage an appraiser.\n\nA non-AMC appraisal is not compliant and should not be used for underwriting or fee justification.\n\nChase is withholding my refund based on an appraisal that may have been ordered improperly and outside federal independence rules. \n\n5. Appraisal Played No Role in Denial Chase denied my loan for reasons unrelated to the property, meaning : The appraisal was not needed It did not impact underwriting It provides no valid justification to withhold my funds Ordering an unnecessary appraisal and refusing a refund is deceptive.\n\n6. Chase Has Repeatedly Failed to Provide Required Documentation To this day, I have not received : The Adverse Action Notice The itemized fee breakdown The written explanation XXXX XXXX promised Any evidence of non-refundable application fees Any proof of the alleged $ XXXX appraisal charge Chases pattern of missing disclosures and conflicting statements indicates serious compliance problems.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-19T20:16:46.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"77088","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17363785","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-11-19T19:46:38.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denials"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chase Has Repeatedly <em>Failed</em> to Provide Required Documentation To this day, I have not received : The Adverse <em>Action</em> Notice The itemized fee breakdown The written explanation XXXX XXXX promised Any evidence of non-refundable application fees Any proof of the alleged $ XXXX appraisal charge Chases pattern of missing disclosures and conflicting statements indicates <em>serious</em> compliance problems."]},"sort":[20.698444,"17363785"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12835054","_score":18.077936,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Navy Federal Credit Union Re : Case # XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> From : XXXX XXXX Formal Rebuttal to Navy Federal Credit Unions Response Wire Transfer of {$730000.00} I am writing to formally dispute Navy Federal Credit Unions response submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/year>, regarding the {$730000.00} wire transfer received into my business account ending in XXXX on XX/XX/year>. \n\nNavy Federals response is unacceptable. It lacks transparency, provides no documented justification for its actions, and fails to address the seriousness of what amounts to the improper restriction of my account and wrongful return of funds. I demand a full and lawful explanationnot vague language about risk. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Funds Were Deposited and Used Before Action Was Taken The wire transfer was received and fully accessible on XX/XX/year>. I began using those funds immediately for legitimate business purposes. Navy Federal did not restrict the account until XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days later. This timeline makes it clear that no immediate concern existed and suggests poor oversight, reactionary behavior, or miscommunication with the originating bank. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Hold Harmless Letter ( HHL ) Is Not Legal Justification Navy Federal states that an XXXX  from XXXX was received on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXafter the funds were already accessed. An XXXX is not a legal instrument ; it does not confirm fraud or error. It merely attempts to shift liability from the requesting bank. Navy Federals acceptance of this letter without legal compulsion or independent verification is highly concerning and inappropriate. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Violations of Federal Regulations and Consumer Protection Laws Navy Federals conduct violates several federal banking and consumer protection laws, including : 12 CFR 1005 Regulation E ( Electronic Fund Transfers Act ) Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531 Prohibition of Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) Breach of contractual and fiduciary duty by restricting access without notice, without evidence, and without due process. \n\nI was never given the opportunity to dispute or appeal the restriction and return of funds, and no formal findings or documentation were ever shared. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Intent to Pursue Legal Action I am in the process of retaining legal counsel and will be initiating a lawsuit against Navy Federal Credit Union for : Wrongful deprivation of funds, Breach of fiduciary duty, Violations of federal consumer protection laws, Damages from business interruption, reputational harm, and emotional distress, And any other applicable legal claims. \n\nThis situation was mishandled at multiple levels, and I intend to pursue full accountability in court if it is not resolved immediately. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Final Demand : Full Disclosure and Direct Legal Contact Let me be clear : I do not want to be redirected to your legal department or customer service supervisors. \nI am demanding the name, title, and direct contact information ( email and phone ) of the attorney handling this matter on behalf of Navy Federal Credit Union. Stonewalling this request or continuing to provide generic responses will only escalate this matter further and expose Navy Federal to additional liability. \n\nAdditionally, I am requesting the following immediately : A full written explanation of the banks actions, A copy of the Hold Harmless Letter received from XXXX, All internal communications related to the restriction and return of funds, Copies of all internal risk policies used to justify the actions taken against my account, Names and departments of Navy Federal personnel involved. \n\n\n\nConclusion I am giving Navy Federal one final opportunity to resolve this issue professionally and with transparency. If that does not happen, I will proceed with litigation and seek maximum damages for your institutions mishandling of this matter. This is no longer a customer service issueit is now a legal one. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-05T09:22:29.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"44105","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12835054","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-04-05T09:11:00.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It lacks transparency, provides no <em>documented</em> <em>justification</em> for its <em>actions</em>, and <em>fails</em> to address the <em>seriousness</em> of <em>what</em> <em>amounts</em> to the <em>improper</em> restriction of my account and wrongful return of funds. I demand a full and lawful explanationnot vague language about risk. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Funds Were Deposited and Used Before <em>Action</em> Was Taken The wire transfer was received and fully accessible on XX/XX/year>. I began using those funds immediately for legitimate business purposes."]},"sort":[18.077936,"12835054"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19410756","_score":17.072493,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Bank of America , N.A . regarding the improper handling of my credit application, including inconsistent identity verification, post-approval obstruction, unreasonable demands regarding lawful funds, and conduct that raises serious concerns under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), Fair Lending laws, and the CFPBs Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) standards. \n\nI am an existing Bank of America checking account holder. Despite this established banking relationship, Bank of America subjected me to repeated, inconsistent, and unnecessary verification procedures even after approving my application and representing that my card would be shipped. \n\nTimeline and key facts : I was initially approved for a {$10000.00} credit limit, with the only stated condition being identity verification. \nDespite already having a Bank of America checking account, I was required to complete additional identity verification steps. \nDuring this process, I successfully read my XXXX XXXX card number and other identifying details directly from my credit file, and I also received a text message prompting me to authenticate through my Bank of America mobile app, further confirming my identity. \nAfter completing these steps, I was approved again for a {$10000.00} credit limit. \nOn XX/XX/year>, during a recorded phone call, Bank of America representatives explicitly confirmed my approval and stated that my card would arrive the next day, indicating that my application had progressed to final approval and fulfillment. I was informed that the approval and call were recorded. \n\nDespite this finalized approval : 1. Bank of America continued to impose additional and shifting verification demands, including questioning the legitimacy of my funds, even though the funds were lawful, documented, and already deposited within financial institutions.\n\n2. I submitted pay statements showing income exceeding {$800000.00}, along with a written cover letter explaining that I launched my company and detailing the lawful source of my funds, including self-employment income and proceeds from operating and selling a family business. \n3. I also submitted a XXXX Bank statement as part of this verification process. The use of a XXXX statement should not invalidate or undermine the legitimacy of my funds, particularly where the funds are documented and traceable. \n4. Despite this documentation and the fact that I had already been approved and told my card would ship, I was told Bank of America still needed proof of where the money came from. This request is unreasonable given that : The funds were already deposited The amounts were documented through pay statements A written source-of-funds explanation was provided Bank of America had already approved the application and initiated fulfillment 5. I further advised Bank of America that I could provide additional documentation, including investment accounts and high-yield savings accounts reflecting high six-figure balances or greater, yet Bank of America failed to provide a clear, written list of acceptable documentation or explain why what had already been provided was insufficient. \nXXXX. During this process, a Bank of America underwriter made a recorded statement questioning how I could possess this level of funds at my age ( How are you 27 with that much money ). This comment was unrelated to any stated policy requirement and improperly focused on age rather than objective financial criteria.\n\n7. When I requested escalation to a supervisor for clarity regarding the verification requirements and the status of my already-approved application, my request was refused, and I was told I would not be transferred, despite the calls being recorded. \n\nAt no point did Bank of America allege fraud, misrepresentation, or unlawful activity. No adverse action notice was issued, and no written explanation was provided identifying any deficiency. Instead, Bank of America approved my application, represented that my card would arrive next day, and then continued to subject me to open-ended and inconsistent verification demands without policy justification. \n\nI am a XXXX consumer, and I raise this issue to ensure that my application and account were evaluated using objective, race-neutral criteria. The age-based remarks, post-approval obstruction, and heightened scrutiny of lawful, documented funds raise concerns that similarly situated applicants may not be treated equally. I am not asserting intent ; however, I am requesting confirmation that my race played no role, directly or indirectly, in the handling of my application and that Bank of Americas actions complied fully with ECOA and Fair Lending obligations. \n\nHarm Experienced Post-approval delays and uncertainty Stress and reputational harm caused by improper insinuations regarding lawful funds Denial of a clear, transparent review process Loss of confidence in Bank of Americas compliance with consumer protection and fair lending laws","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-11T06:45:24.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"21229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19410756","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-02-11T06:31:19.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Delay in processing application"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This request is unreasonable given that : The funds were already deposited The <em>amounts</em> were <em>documented</em> through pay statements A written source-of-funds explanation was provided Bank of America had already approved the application and initiated fulfillment 5."]},"sort":[17.072493,"19410756"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17825657","_score":16.746223,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied online for financing on a XXXX Mercedes-Benz XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) through Mercedes-Benz of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nShortly after submitting the application, I received a text message from XXXX XXXX ( Internet Director ) stating that I was pre-approved. That set the expectation that my application for the XXXX XXXX had been legitimately reviewed and that financing was realistically available. \n\nAfter that, I began communicating by text with XXXX XXXX ( Sales Consultant ). During XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX repeatedly told me I was approved, but when I asked multiple times for the lenders written approval/denial, lender name, terms, conditions, and any down-payment requirement, she refused to provide any of that in writing. Instead, she sent me a dealer-created XXXX Motors worksheet for a completely different vehicle ( a XXXX Mercedes-Benz C-Class XXXX never applied for ) showing {$5000.00} down and a {$330.00} monthly payment. No lender was identified on this document, and it did not match the vehicle I applied for. \n\nThroughout the text conversation, XXXX gave me several different down-payment amounts that she attributed to the bank : first {$5000.00}, then {$20000.00}, then {$60000.00} for the XXXX XXXX. None of these amounts were supported by any lender documentation. When I continued to request written lender terms and asked to move the conversation to email, she refused, stayed only in text messages, spoke negatively about my creditworthiness, and made me feel like I was bothering her. The conversation ended with her telling me, Let us know when youre serious about coming in, which felt humiliating and unprofessional. At XXXX point she even claimed she could not email lender information because of HIPAA, which is not accurate for auto financing. \n\nBecause of all this, I escalated the situation by emailing the stores General Manager, XXXX XXXX. In his reply, he stated that the only complete vehicle inquiry they show on file is for a XXXX XXXX and that there is no submitted documentation or lender information for a XXXX XXXX  XXXX. This directly contradicts what I was told by both XXXX XXXX who said I was pre-approved for the XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX who said I was approved and repeatedly quoted down-payment amounts as if they came from a lender ). \n\nSeparately, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an adverse action letter from XXXXl XXXX stating that Mercedes-Benz of XXXX submitted a request for auto financing on my behalf on XX/XX/XXXX and that XXXXl XXXX did not approve the request. The dealer never informed me of this denial, never identified XXXX XXXX as a lender they used, and never provided me with any written lender terms, approval, or denial when I asked. All of the information I received about approval and down payments came verbally or by text from dealership staff and was inconsistent, undocumented, and misleading. \n\nIn summary, my complaint is that the dealership : Misrepresented my approval status for the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nProvided a dealer-created worksheet for a different vehicle I never applied for. \nQuoted multiple, unsupported down-payment amounts as if they were lender requirements. \nRefused to provide the lender name or written approval/denial after multiple requests. \nFailed to inform me that an application had been submitted to XXXX XXXX and that it was denied. \nUsed unprofessional, shaming, and dismissive language when I asked for transparency. \n\n\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB review whether my rights were violated under all applicable federal consumer protection laws, including but not limited to : ECOA ( Equal Credit Opportunity Act ) adverse action disclosure requirements and misrepresentation of approval status TILA ( Truth in Lending Act ) failure to provide accurate finance disclosures and refusal to produce lender terms in writing FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) improper submission and use of my credit application without transparency or acknowledgment UDAP / UDAAP provisions ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) due to repeated misleading statements, contradictory down-payment demands, false justification ( HIPAA ) , and refusal to document lender actions XXXX XXXX XXXX Guidelines requiring transparent disclosure of lender decisions, terms, conditions, and adverse action notices I am asking the Bureau to determine whether the dealerships conduct including claiming I was approved, refusing to provide lender documentation, quoting inconsistent down-payment amounts with no written basis, and submitting an application to at least one lender without notifying me constitutes violations requiring corrective action, oversight, and regulatory enforcement.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-08T12:14:40.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"945XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17825657","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mercedes Benz Financial Services","date_received":"2025-12-08T10:25:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or acknowledgment UDAP / UDAAP provisions ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) due to repeated misleading statements, contradictory down-payment demands, false <em>justification</em> ( HIPAA ) , and refusal to <em>document</em> lender <em>actions</em> XXXX XXXX XXXX Guidelines requiring transparent disclosure of lender decisions, terms, conditions, and adverse <em>action</em> notices I am asking the Bureau to determine whether the dealerships conduct including claiming I was approved, refusing to provide lender documentation"]},"sort":[16.746223,"17825657"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12540877","_score":12.317463,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CC : XXXX XXXX ( Experian - Group General Counsel ), XXXX XXXX ( Experian - Chief Compliance Officer ), CFPB, FTC Subject : Formal Response to Experians Mischaracterization of Dispute Demand for Compliance To whom it may concern, I am writing to formally address Experians improper and inaccurate classification of my disputes under CFPB Complaint IDs XXXX and XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, Experian issued two separate responses, both falsely designating my disputes as fraud-related. \nThis is an outright misrepresentation of the facts and a direct violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) and FCRA 1681e ( b ). At no point in these disputes have I alleged fraud, requested a fraud alert, or submitted any documentation indicating identity theft.\n\nFor absolute clarity and evidentiary purposes, the following documents are attached to this communication : A notarized Affidavit of Truth ( AOT ), which serves as a sworn statement supporting my claims and confirming that no fraud claim has ever been made by me in relation to these disputes.\n\nMultiple FTC Fraud Reports, formally documenting Experians fraudulent misclassification of my disputes. These reports detail Experians deliberate misuse of fraud classifications as a tactic to evade compliance, obstruct regulatory oversight, and improperly close out valid CFPB complaints. \nThese documents serve as official evidence that Experians classification of my disputes as fraud-related is factually false, legally indefensible, and constitutes a material misrepresentation of my claims. Further, the FTC Fraud Reports provide a formal record of Experians deceptive business practices, reinforcing the need for regulatory intervention and legal consequences. \nAbsolute Denial of Fraud Misclassification Any Past or Present Fraud Designations Are False and Unauthorized At no pointpast or present, on or before XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXhave I alleged fraud, requested a fraud alert, submitted any documentation indicating identity theft, or authorized any classification of my disputes as fraud-related. No fraud claim has ever been made, or is currently being made, in connection with any disputes as of XX/XX/year>. \nExperians assignment of a fraud designation to my disputes is : Factually incorrect No statement, document, or action on my part has indicated fraud in any capacity.\n\nLegally unjustified No provision under the FCRA, state consumer protection laws, or any other governing regulation permits Experian to arbitrarily classify a dispute as fraud without basis.\n\nA material misrepresentation Any reference to fraud in relation to my disputes is demonstrably false and constitutes a direct mischaracterization of my claims.\n\nExperian is Formally on Notice That : 1. No fraud designationpast, present, or futureis valid, warranted, or authorized in connection with any of my disputes filed on or before XX/XX/year>. \n2. No fraud-related classification has ever been requested, supported, or substantiated by any documentation I have submitted on or before XX/XX/year>. \n3. No fraud-related investigation, review, or designation is applicable, and any reference to such is a material misrepresentation of any dispute filed on or before XX/XX/year>. \n4. Experian has no authority, justification, or factual basis to apply a fraud designation to any disputes I have submitted on or before XX/XX/year>. \nOngoing Documentation of Experians Misconduct Systemic Pattern of Regulatory Evasion I am actively tracking, documenting, and cataloging every instance where Experian fraudulently applies a fraud classification or any other manufactured justification to improperly close out valid CFPB complaints. This includes, but is not limited to : Each instance where Experian misclassifies my CFPB complaints as fraud-related to evade directly addressing the substantive issues raised in the disputes. \nEvery case where Experian improperly closes out a valid CFPB complaint without providing a legally compliant response, citing fraud or another fabricated justification to avoid compliance. \nAll responses from Experian in the CFPB complaint portal containing deliberate misrepresentations, procedural evasion, or fraudulent classifications that obstruct my ability to obtain an official resolution. \nExperians deliberate misuse of fraud designations and other deceptive tactics to obstruct regulatory oversight is now part of a fully documented pattern of systemic noncompliance and fraudulent dispute handling. Every instance is being compiled as evidence for federal and state enforcement actions. \nLegal Consequences Regulatory Violations and Enforcement Actions Any existing, continued, or future reference by Experian to fraud, identity theft, or any other manufactured justification used to improperly close or evade a valid CFPB complaint is : Categorically false, willfully misleading, and legally indefensible. \nA violation of federal and state consumer protection laws that govern dispute handling, regulatory compliance, and fair consumer reporting practices. \nEvidence of Experians systemic abuse of the dispute process to avoid accountability. \nThis behavior constitutes : Regulatory obstruction and noncompliance with CFPB oversight.\n\nMaterial misrepresentation under FCRA 1681i ( a ) and 1681e ( b ).\n\nUnfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\nViolations of the D.C. CPPA and California UCL for deceptive trade practices.\n\nEvery future instance of misrepresentation, fraud designation misuse, or CFPB complaint evasion will be added to an expanding record of regulatory violations and legal breaches.\n\nLegal Consequences Regulatory Violations and Enforcement Actions Any existing, continued, or future reference by Experian to fraud, identity theft, or any other manufactured justification used to improperly close, misclassify, or evade a valid CFPB complaint is : Categorically false, willfully misleading, and legally indefensible. \nA direct violation of federal and state consumer protection laws governing dispute handling, regulatory compliance, and fair consumer reporting practices. \nEvidence of Experians systemic abuse of the dispute process as a strategy to avoid regulatory accountability. \nThis behavior constitutes : Regulatory obstruction and noncompliance with CFPB oversight.\n\nMaterial misrepresentation under FCRA 1681i ( a ) and 1681e ( b ).\n\nUnfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\nViolations of the D.C. CPPA and California UCL for deceptive trade practices.\n\nEvery future instance of fraudulent misclassification, CFPB complaint evasion, or procedural obstruction will be added to an expanding regulatory record for submission to : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) for enforcement review. \nThe Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) under the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAP ) framework.\n\nThe U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Consumer Protection Branch for fraudulent misrepresentation.\n\nState Attorneys General in Washington , D.C., and California for deceptive trade practices enforcement.\n\nExperians pattern of misconduct is being actively tracked, compiled, and escalated for regulatory enforcement, legal action, and formal oversight investigations. \nExperians Fraudulent Misclassification Reputational Harm, Legal Liability, and Consumer Protection Violations Experians false classification of my disputes as fraud-related creates immediate and long-term reputational harm, legal exposure, and violations of consumer protection laws. A fraud designation, even when baseless, carries significant consequencesaffecting how financial institutions, regulatory bodies, and credit reporting agencies interpret and process my consumer data.\n\nExperians misclassification is not a clerical error ; it is a material misrepresentation that threatens my ability to engage in financial transactions, dispute inaccurate information, and maintain a fair and accurate credit profile. This deliberate misrepresentation exposes Experian to civil liability for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.\n\n1. Defamation ( Libel ) False Written Statements That Harm Reputation Experians fraudulent misclassification has the potential to cause direct and substantial harm to my reputation, particularly if : This false classification has been shared with third parties, such as lenders, credit reporting agencies, or financial institutions.\n\nIt remains stored in Experians internal records, increasing the risk that it will be referenced in future disputes, investigations, or consumer reports.\n\nThe misclassification triggers unwarranted fraud-based scrutiny, affecting my ability to access financial services, secure credit approvals, or resolve disputes.\n\nEven if not publicly disclosed, a fraud designation within the CFPB complaint system still creates a reputational risk by interfering with my ability to correct errors on my credit report and engage with regulators.\n\n2. False Light ( Invasion of Privacy ) Creating a Misleading Public Perception Experians false fraud designation misrepresents my character and financial standing, placing me in a misleading and damaging context that could impact future regulatory and financial transactions.\n\nA fraud designation inherently suggests wrongdoing and creates an inaccurate perception that I have engaged in fraudulent activity.\n\nIf lenders, banks, or other institutions treat me differently based on Experians misrepresentation, this could support a false light claim.\n\nExperian has a legal duty to ensure that its classifications of disputes are accurate and not misleading, especially when fraud-related designations carry serious reputational and financial consequences.\n\n3. Defamation by Implication The Harmful Effect of Fraud Designation Even if Experian does not explicitly state that I committed fraud, their fraud classification implies fraudulent activity. This creates serious legal and reputational consequences, as : Fraud-related designations inherently suggest misconduct and can influence how financial institutions assess my credibility.\n\nEven an unsubstantiated fraud claim can trigger heightened scrutiny, denials, and financial restrictions.\n\nExperian has a documented history of misclassifying disputes, further increasing the likelihood that this fraudulent classification will have lasting negative effects.\n\nIf Experian fails to immediately correct this misclassification, it increases the risk that this misinformation will negatively impact my reputation within the CFPB complaint system and my ability to submit lawful disputes against Experian.\n\nBy falsely categorizing my disputes as fraud-related, Experian is creating a misleading regulatory record that could improperly influence dispute outcomes, obstruct my legal rights, and prevent regulatory agencies from conducting an unbiased review of my complaints.\n\n4. Consumer Protection Violations False and Misleading Business Practices Many state and federal consumer protection laws explicitly prohibit false or misleading statements that harm a consumers financial standing, creditworthiness, and reputation. Experians fraudulent classification of my disputes directly violates these protections, including : D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ) : o Prohibits false representations and material omissions that mislead consumers or interfere with their rights.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ) : o Prohibits fraudulent and deceptive business practices that cause reputational harm or financial damage. \nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ) : o Requires credit reporting agencies to maintain maximum possible accuracy in all consumer records, including disputes and internal classifications.\n\no Experians misclassification of my disputes violates this statutory requirement, making them liable for both negligent and willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n and 1681o. \nMisclassification of CFPB Complaint ID XXXX Bad-Faith Attempt to Evade Compliance My complaint, CFPB ID XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/year>, was a formal demand for Experian to comply with its legal obligations regarding the suppression of my personal information. This complaint directly responded to Experians XX/XX/year>, at XXXX XXXX  EST email, which mischaracterized my suppression request, falsely invoked identity theft, and imposed baseless procedural hurdles that have no legal foundation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ), or any other applicable law.\n\nExperians response to this complaint falsely assigns a fraud designation where none exists. At no point did I allege fraud, request a fraud alert, or submit any documentation indicating identity theft. This misclassification is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the dispute process, misrepresent the nature of my request, and evade accountability for clear legal violations.\n\nBy falsely categorizing my complaint as fraud-related, Experian is engaging in willful misrepresentation and obstruction, violating multiple federal, D.C., and California consumer protection laws : FCRA 1681i ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 1681c-2 ( a ) Unlawful refusal to suppress s\nensitive personal information.\n\nD.C. CPPA 28-3904 (\n\ne ) & ( f ) False and material misrepresentations regarding consumer rights. California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1798.105 Failure to\ncomply with a consumers right to request suppression of personal data.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.81.5 Failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures to protect consumer data.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.110 Failure to disclose how consumer information is retained and used.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210 Engaging in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681n & 1681o Willful and negligent noncompliance with federal law.\n\nThis is not an oversightit is a calculated effort to evade regulatory scrutiny and suppress valid consumer claims. Experian must be immediately investigated for : 1. Deliberately misclassifying consumer disputes to evade compliance.\n\n2. Engaging in deceptive practices to obstruct lawful FCRA and CCPA requests.\n\n3. Systematically failing to protect sensitive consumer information as required by law.\n\nGiven Experians ongoing federal investigation for systemic FCRA violations ( CFPB Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ), this misclassification is further proof of their pattern of noncompliance and obstructionist practices. Their fraudulent dispute-handling tactics warrant immediate enforcement action, regulatory fines, and further legal scrutiny by both the CFPB, FTC, and California Attorney General. \nMisclassification of CFPB Complaint ID XXXX Deliberate Evasion of Compliance My complaint, CFPB Complaint ID XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/year>, was a formal notice documenting Experians blatant failure to comply with the 30-day response requirement under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) for CFPB Complaint ID XXXX. This was not a disputeit was a regulatory escalation to document Experians statutory violation and continued refusal to comply with federal law.\n\nRather than addressing the clear violation, Experian falsely assigned a fraud designation to my complaint, which has no connection whatsoever to fraud, identity theft, or unauthorized activity. This is not an errorit is a deliberate and calculated attempt to misclassify my complaint to evade enforcement, conceal statutory violations, and obstruct regulatory oversight.\n\nThis type of misclassification is a bad-faith practice that directly violates federal, D.C., and California consumer protection laws, including : FCRA 1681i ( a ) Failure to c\nonduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nD.C. CPPA 28-3904 (\n\ne ) & ( f ) Material misrepresentation and omission of critical facts.\n\nCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1798.105 Failure to comply with consumer rights to suppress personal data.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.81.5 Failure to secure sensitive consumer information.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210 Engaging in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681n & 1681o Willful and negligent noncompliance.\n\nExperian is knowingly engaging in obstructionist tactics to dismiss valid consumer complaints, conceal clear FCRA and CCPA violations, and evade financial and regulatory penalties. Given that Experian is already under federal scrutiny for systemic FCRA violations ( CFPB Case No.\n8:25-cv-24 ), this misclassification is further evidence of their ongoing pattern of noncompliance and deceptive dispute-handling practices.\n\nDocumented Cases of Experians Fraudulent Misclassification of Disputes The following section provides a detailed list of all CFPB complaints where Experian has falsely classified my disputes as fraud-related or used other deceptive tactics to improperly close out valid complaints. This list will continue to be updated and expanded as additional instances of misconduct are documented. \nList of Affected CFPB Complaints ( all attached ) : Complaint ID Date Filed Date of Experians Fraudulent Classification Description of Misclassification / Evasion Tactic XXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nExperians deliberate misclassification of my disputes is not an isolated occurrenceit is part of a broader pattern of systemic misconduct. This fraudulent misclassification strategy is actively being tracked, documented, and compiled into a comprehensive legal and regulatory case. The ongoing documentation of Experians deceptive dispute-handling tactics will be presented in all formal regulatory complaints, legal actions, and enforcement proceedings Experians False Statements on a Federally Regulated Consumer Complaint Platform Violations of Federal, D.C., and California Law Experians deliberate misclassification of my disputes as fraud-related on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) complaint portal is not merely a bad-faith procedural tacticit is an intentional misrepresentation made on a federally regulated platform, with supporting federal fraud reports ( FTC ), in direct violation of federal and state consumer protection and fraud laws.\n\nThis misconduct extends beyond mere procedural noncompliance ; it constitutes a knowing and willful submission of false information to a federal regulatory body regarding an ongoing consumer protection matter. Because these complaints were formally submitted through the CFPBs federally monitored complaint system, Experians actions may amount to : Fraudulent misrepresentation in federal regulatory filings. \nObstruction of a federal consumer protection process. \nDeceptive business practices designed to evade regulatory accountability. \nThese violations warrant immediate regulatory enforcement and legal action to ensure that Experian is held accountable for submitting false and misleading information on a federally monitored platform. \nLegal Violations Why This is a Major Federal Issue By knowingly submitting false information on a federal consumer protection platform and misrepresenting the nature of my disputes, Experian has violated multiple laws across federal, D.C., and California jurisdictions, including : 1. Federal Law Violations 18 U.S.C. 1001 False Statements to a Federal Agency o This statute makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal agency.\n\no The CFPB complaint system is a federal regulatory platform, and Experians false classification of my complaints directly misleads a federal agency regarding their legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\n15 U.S.C. 45 ( FTC Act ) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAP ) o The FTC Act prohibits deceptive business practices, including false representations made in regulatory filings, consumer disclosures, or complaint responses.\n\no Experians fraudulent misclassification directly interferes with my rights as a consumer and obstructs the regulatory process intended to protect me from Experians violations.\n\nFCRA 1681n Willful Noncompliance with Federal Law o The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes liability for willful violations, including misrepresentations that obstruct a consumers right to a fair and lawful investigation.\n\no Experians intentional misclassification of my complaints as fraud-related when they are not constitutes willful noncompliance, which allows me to pursue statutory and punitive damages.\n\nFCRA 1681s ( a ) ( 2 ) Duty to Provide Accurate Information to Regulators o Consumer reporting agencies are legally required to provide truthful and accurate information to federal regulators regarding disputes and complaint resolutions.\n\no Experians misrepresentation of my complaint status as fraud-related is an explicit violation of this requirement.\n\n2. Washington, D.C. Law Violations D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( D.C. CPPA ) 28-3904 ( e ) & ( f ) False and Misleading Statements o The D.C. CPPA prohibits material misrepresentations and omissions of consumer rights, particularly in transactions involving consumer credit and reporting agencies.\n\no Experians fraudulent misclassification on the CFPB portal constitutes : A material misrepresentation of my dispute status to avoid legal compliance.\n\nA deceptive business practice intended to obstruct regulatory enforcement.\n\nD.C. Identity Theft Protection Act 22-3227.02 ( a ) Duty to Protect Personal Information o Experians fraudulent reclassification of my dispute as fraud-related contradicts the evidence I submitted and increases my exposure to further identity verification risks.\n\no This false designation may also interfere with my ability to take corrective action on my credit report by forcing unnecessary identity theft-related procedures upon me.\n\n3. California Law Violations California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) Cal. Civ. Code 1798.110 & 1798.130 o The CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with accurate records of how their information is used and reported.\n\no Experians false classification of my dispute as fraud-related violates my CCPA rights by misrepresenting the nature of my requests and failing to provide transparency regarding how my information is being processed.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210 o The UCL prohibits unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, including : Submitting false or misleading information to regulators ( CFPB ).\n\nObstructing lawful consumer complaints through deception.\n\no Experians misrepresentation directly violates this law and exposes them to state enforcement penalties.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.81.5 Failure to Secure Consumer Data o Experians fraudulent dispute classification places me at risk for further unnecessary fraud investigations while failing to address their obligations to suppress my personal data properly.\n\no By misrepresenting my dispute as fraud-related, Experian has actively failed in its duty to ensure the responsible handling of my personal information.\n\nWhy This is a Major Regulatory and Legal Issue Experians false statements on the CFPB portal, especially when FTC fraud reports were attached to my complaints, expose several layers of liability : 1. Obstruction of a Federal Consumer Protection System o The CFPB portal is a federal enforcement tool that relies on truthful submissions to regulate credit reporting agencies. \no By knowingly submitting false information, Experian is undermining the integrity of a federal system designed to enforce consumer protection laws.\n\n2. Attempted Evasion of Regulatory Penalties o Experians misclassification is a strategic attempt to avoid liability under FCRA, the D.C. CPPA, and CCPA.\n\no By labeling my complaints as fraud-related, they are creating a false justification for noncompliance with consumer protection laws.\n\n3. Denial of My Consumer Rights Under Multiple Laws o Misrepresenting my dispute obstructs my right to a fair reinvestigation under FCRA 1681i ( a ), which ensures consumers have access to proper dispute resolution.\n\no Deceptive classification tactics directly interfere with my right to privacy and accuracy under both the D.C. and California consumer protection statutes. \nExperian has demonstrated a systemic and deliberate strategy of deception that is not only ethically indefensible but legally actionable. Their fraudulent misclassification of disputes on a federally regulated complaint platform, combined with the presence of attached FTC fraud reports, constitutes a direct attack on the integrity of the regulatory system designed to protect consumers. \nExperians Fraudulent Dispute Misclassification Aligns with the CFPBs Federal Lawsuit Systemic Pattern of Consumer Deception Experians misclassification of my disputes as fraud-related on the CFPB complaint portal is not an isolated eventit is part of a broader pattern of deceptive business practices that aligns directly with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) lawsuit against Experian ( Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ). This lawsuit highlights Experians long-standing violations of consumer protection laws, including its failure to properly investigate disputes, its use of misleading consumer disclosures, and its obstruction of consumer rights.\n\nThe CFPBs case against Experian provides clear evidence that Experian has engaged in systemic misconduct, and my case directly reinforces the allegations raised in the lawsuit.\n\nKey Allegations in CFPB v. Experian ( Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ) That Align with My Complaints The CFPB lawsuit against Experian identifies multiple patterns of deceptive and unlawful behavior that match exactly what I have experienced. These include : 1. Fraudulent Dispute Handling and Misclassification of Consumer Complaints The CFPB has accused Experian of : o Misrepresenting how consumer disputes are processed.\n\no Failing to conduct proper investigations.\n\no Using misleading classifications to avoid compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nThis is exactly what Experian did in my casemisclassifying my legitimate dispute as fraud-related to evade their legal obligations.\n\n2. Obstruction of Consumer Rights Under the FCRA The CFPB lawsuit details how Experian obstructs consumer efforts to correct their credit reports by : o Providing inaccurate dispute responses.\n\no Imposing unnecessary procedural barriers.\n\no Failing to provide consumers with accurate information about their disputes.\n\nExperian obstructed my rights in the same way by falsely claiming my dispute was fraud-related, knowing that this would delay or prevent a proper resolution.\n\n3. Knowingly Providing False and Misleading Information to Consumers and Regulators The CFPB has accused Experian of : o Misrepresenting its dispute process to consumers and federal regulators.\n\no Providing misleading or incomplete information about dispute resolutions.\n\no Manipulating consumer complaint responses to minimize liability.\n\nExperians false fraud designation on my CFPB complaints is another clear example of this type of misconduct.\n\nThey knowingly submitted false information to a federal platform ( CFPB ) while attached FTC fraud reports were present, making this a serious violation.\n\n4. Violations of Federal Consumer Protection Laws, Including the FCRA and UDAP The CFPB lawsuit charges Experian with : o Failing to comply with FCRA 1681i ( a ) by not properly investigating disputes.\n\no Engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices ( UDAP ) under federal law.\n\no Providing misleading information in federally monitored complaint systems.\n\nThis mirrors what Experian did in my caseknowingly filing false dispute classifications in a federal consumer complaint system.\n\nMy Dispute Experience is Direct Proof That Experians Violations Are Ongoing Experians actions in my experience provide real-time, documented proof that they are still engaging in the misconduct outlined in CFPB v. Experian ( Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ). Their fraudulent misclassification of my dispute is an escalation of their deception, as it involves knowingly submitting false information to a federal complaint system. The CFPB, FTC, and state regulators must act swiftly to prevent further consumer harm and impose additional financial penalties for these violations.\n\nExperians systemic pattern of misrepresentation, obstruction, and deception is now well-documented in both the CFPBs lawsuit and my direct complaints. The next step must be immediate regulatory enforcement to hold them accountable for their continuous abuse of consumer rights and the law.\n\nImmediate Corrective Action Required to Prevent Further Harm Given the serious risk of reputational damage, obstruction of lawful disputes, and regulatory harm, Experian must take immediate corrective measures to ... .... CONTINUE READING FULL COMPLAINT AT \" Formal Response to Experians Mischaracterization of Dispute Demand for Compliance.PDF ''","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-18T03:27:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20008","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12540877","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-18T03:17:48.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Experian has no authority, <em>justification</em>, or factual basis to apply a fraud designation to any disputes I have submitted on or before XX/XX/year>. \nOngoing Documentation of Experians Misconduct Systemic Pattern of Regulatory Evasion I am actively tracking, <em>documenting</em>, and cataloging every instance where Experian fraudulently applies a fraud classification or any other manufactured <em>justification</em> to <em>improperly</em> close out valid CFPB complaints."]},"sort":[12.317463,"12540877"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22596398","_score":10.600252,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America , N.A .\n\nAttention : Notice of Error and Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Counsels - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX .\n\nBank of Americas XX/XX/XXXX letter is a DOE and legally deficient, factually incomplete, and deliberately evasive. Bank of America, can not simultaneously claim that their response is provided under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, while also arguing that the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence forwarded by XXXX XXXX was not a proper Notice of Error or Request for Information because it was not sent to your designated address. Regulation X does not permit a servicer to invoke its protections when convenient and disclaim its obligations when inconvenient.\n\nYour letter repeatedly states that no errors were identified and no corrections are required. These conclusory assertions are insufficient. You fail to describe the scope of any investigation performed, the systems or custodians searched, the retention policies applied, or the specific documents relied upon for each determination.\n\nA bare conclusion does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X.\n\nError 1 HOA Payment Misapplication Your claim that all payments were applied correctly and that you have no record of any HOA payment misapplication is not credible. Bank of America has no authority to decide whether HOA payment errors occurred in this account. The U.S. government, via XXXX XXXX and other federal agencies, hired a third party who determined who has already conducted an audit and identified errors in the handling of the HOA and on this loan. That finding alone is supersedes Bank of America and it is sufficient to establish that servicing errors took place. Bank of America, with all their law firms, is not a regulatory agency and can not simply override or ignore a government audit by issuing a self-serving statement that it found no error.\n\nMoreover, the Loan History Statement you attached does not address the critical period when the property was under the control of your preservation contractors, ( Who admitted the locks were changed without authorization, and when the property was severely damaged.\n\nBank of America generated an AI letter as the HOA matter does not pertain to Bank of America. Furthermore, Bank of America, does not have access to accounting information nevertheless any ledger, accounting statement, or distribution record showing the actual amounts paid to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from the foreclosure sale proceeds, or how those amounts were credited against the loan or judgment and if Bank of America does have HOA information, it will be interesting to know how it was obtained.\n\nIt is now well documented that during this period, major banks, including through their relationship with XXXX XXXX, colluded with homeowners associations to drive foreclosures and extract payments from distressed homeowners. \nBank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises serious questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the improper benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process.\n\nA bare assertion that all payments were applied correctly without producing the underlying HOA ledgers, sale proceeds distribution records, or any explanation of how the government audit findings were considered does not constitute a reasonable investigation under Regulation X and the sole mentioned of it, means that an audit is merited. Error 2 Property Preservation Damage and Insurance Proceeds Bank of America state that property preservation activities were conducted in accordance with standard servicing practices and that Bank of America have no record of any insurance claims or proceeds. This response is inadequate. Your own preservation contractors caused damage to the property. One of your agents changed the locks and installed a lock-box without authorization, after which appliances and personal property were removed. The XXXX XXXX Police Department documented this incident. Your claim that you have no record of insurance claims does not address the damage caused by your own agents while the property remained legally mine. You have also failed to identify the systems searched or provide any preservation vendor records, invoices, or communications.\n\nError 3 Foreclosure Sale Based on Depressed Valuation You claim the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with applicable law and that the valuation was based on the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. You do not address the XX/XX/XXXX court order that specifically noted PROPERTY DAMAGE and directed Bank of America to repair the property within thirty days. You also ignore contemporaneous appraisals showing the damaged property was valued at approximately {$100000.00} less than half the judgment amount. You can not damage the property, ignore a court repair order, sell it in that condition, and then claim the valuation was accurate. You have provided no valuation analysis, property-condition evidence, or preservation records tied to the valuation.\n\nError 4 DOJ Enforcement Action Review and Exclusion from Settlements Bank of America state that the loan was not identified for review under any DOJ enforcement action or settlement. Bank of America response is not only disingenuous, but it also misleading.\n\nIn addition to the 2012 California-specific robo-signing case ( Case No. XXXX ), there were several major nationwide settlements involving Bank of America and its predecessor, XXXX. \nIn XXXX, the Department of Justice entered into its largest residential fair lending settlement in history against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( then owned by Bank of America ) in the Central District of XXXX. The {$330.00} XXXX settlement addressed systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Plaintiff was excluded from any relief under this settlement despite extensive prior communications with Bank of America. \nIn XXXX, Bank of America, along with other major servicers, entered into the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement resolving widespread foreclosure and servicing abuses, including robo-signing. Bank of America paid the largest share of this settlement. Plaintiff was again excluded from any borrower relief.\n\nBetween XXXX and XXXX, Bank of America paid approximately {$16.00} XXXX to resolve Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities claims. Plaintiff received no compensation or remediation under any of these agreements, despite the clear overlap between the misconduct addressed in those settlements and the facts of her foreclosure, property damage, confirmation defects, and post-sale accounting issues.\n\nBank of America statement that the loan was not identified for review does not change the fact that Plaintiff was systematically excluded from relief programs designed to address the very categories of harm she suffered.\n\nIncomplete Foreclosure Accounting and Record Destruction Bank of America state that records concerning the distribution of foreclosure proceeds and the VA net-value acquisition calculation are no longer retained in your archival system. You provide only a partial Loan History Statement. You have not demonstrated that you conducted a reasonable search of all servicer files, foreclosure files, legal files, guaranty-claim files, or vendor files. Simply claiming records are purged or may be with the VA does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X or in active litigation. Bank of America have also failed to provide document retention policy, purge dates, or an affidavit from a records custodian.\n\nCredit Reporting Response You state that the loan is no longer being reported to consumer reporting agencies and that prior reporting was accurate when made. This is insufficient. You have not identified what was actually reported, when it was reported, to which agencies, or what documents you reviewed to conclude the reporting was accurate and how negatively impacted and impacts my credit- despite that U. S. Federal agencies found these errors. A conclusory statement does not constitute a reasonable investigation.\n\nDemand for Supplemental Response Bank of America must supplement its response within ten ( 10 ) business days and provide the following : All documents reviewed or relied upon for each no error determination.\n\nThe complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of proceeds and any VA net-value calculations.\n\nAll property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications.\n\nAll HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale proceeds and how they were credited.\n\nAll insurance claim and proceeds records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this loan.\n\nA request-by-request explanation, tied to a specific Regulation X exception, for every document withheld as over-broad, burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or outside your possession.\n\nFailure to provide a complete and compliant supplemental response will be treated as continued noncompliance with Regulation X and as evidence of bad faith.\n\nNothing in this letter waives any rights, claims, objections, remedies, or damages. All prior reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Notice of Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations to XXXX XXXX XXXX This addemdum is directed to you in your capacity as counsel for Bank of America , N.A . in connection with the above-referenced loan and property. You are hereby placed on formal notice of your fiduciary duties and ethical obligations as an officer of the court. It appears that AI drafted a letter with matters that do not pertain to Bank of America.\n\nAs an attorney representing a client in matters involving federal statutes, ongoing litigation, and regulatory compliance, you owe duties that extend beyond mere advocacy for your client. These include : Duty of Candor to the Tribunal Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, and the corresponding rules adopted by the jurisdictions in which you practice, you have an affirmative duty to be candid with courts and to correct false or misleading statements made to any tribunal.\n\nThis duty continues even after a representation has concluded if you later learn that false evidence or statements were presented.\n\nDuty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you assist a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X.\n\nDuty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When responding to a borrowers Notice of Error or Request for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, counsel has an obligation to ensure that the servicer has conducted a reasonable search and that the response is accurate and complete. A response that relies on conclusory statements while withholding material records does not satisfy this duty. \n\nDuty as an XXXX of the XXXX You are not merely a private advocate. You are an XXXX of the legal system with a special responsibility for the quality of justice. This includes the obligation to refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial or administrative processes, including the concealment of material information or the making of representations that are inconsistent with known facts in the record. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations. These include contradictory positions regarding the applicability of Regulation X, conclusory no error findings unsupported by identified records, failure to produce critical accounting and distribution documents from the foreclosure sale, and incomplete or evasive responses regarding property preservation, HOA payments, and credit reporting.\n\nYou are further advised that continued reliance on prior responses, blanket assertions that records have been purged, or deflection of responsibility to other entities ( such as the VA ) without a demonstrated reasonable search of all relevant files may constitute a violation of your ethical duties, particularly in light of the government audit findings and the documented internal concerns regarding the foreclosure and title issues.\n\nThis letter serves as formal notice that any further deficient or misleading responses may be used as evidence of bad faith and may be brought to the attention of the appropriate courts, regulatory bodies, and disciplinary authorities.\n\nNothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to me. All prior objections, demands, and reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nI expect a complete and compliant supplemental response within the timeframe previously demanded. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Issue in XXXX Letter, Why Its an Error, Regulation/ Legal Problem 1 ) Contradictory position on Regulation X, '' They claim the response is under 1024.35 & 1024.36, but then say your XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX letter ( forwarded by XXXX ) was not a proper RESPA request because it wasnt sent to the designated address. '' You can not invoke the protections of Regulation X while simultaneously disclaiming its obligations. This is a classic bad-faith tactic.\n\n2 ) Conclusory no error findings, '' They repeatedly say no errors were identified without describing what investigation was done, which systems were searched, or which documents were reviewed. \", Regulation X requires a reasonable investigation. A bare conclusion is insufficient ( see XXXX XXXX Bank of America ). \n\n3 ) Failure to identify relied-upon documents, They never clearly list what records they actually reviewed for each no error determination., Required under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) and 1024.36 ( d ).\n\n4 ) Global / blanket objections, '' They make a broad statement that some requests are overbroad, burdensome, or not in their possession without tying each objection to specific requests. \", Regulation X requires them to respond to the reasonably identifiable portion and explain each withholding specifically.\n\n5 ) Incomplete foreclosure accounting, '' They only gave a partial Loan History Statement and claimed records of foreclosure proceeds distribution and VA net-value calculation are no longer retained. They did not prove they searched all relevant files ( servicing, legal, foreclosure, vendor ). \", This is not a reasonable search. They also failed to provide retention policy or custodian affidavit.\n\n6 ) VA record deflection, They say VA net-value records may have been maintained by the VA without showing they searched their own guaranty-claim files or vendor files., XXXX ( as servicer ) had obligations to maintain and produce these records.\n\n7 ) Weak valuation response ( Error 3 ), '' They claim the sale was proper and valuation was accurate, but completely ignore the XX/XX/XXXX court order ( PROPERTY DAMAGE ) and the XX/XX/XXXX appraisals showing ~ $ XXXX value. \", They must address the specific evidence you raised.\n\n8 ) Misleading settlement response ( Error 4 ), They say the loan was not identified for any settlement. This is misleading because you were excluded from the XXXX XXXX Fair Lending Settlement and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement despite the nature of your claims., They are downplaying the pattern of exclusion.\n\n9 ) Credit reporting response is conclusory, '' They say the loan is no longer reported and prior reporting was accurate when made without identifying what was reported, when, or to which bureaus. \", This does not constitute a proper investigation or correction under FCRA or RESPA.\n\n10 ) Record destruction without justification, \" They admit BPOs and old escrow statements were purged but provide no retention policy, purge dates, or proof of reasonable search before destruction ( especially after litigation was foreseeable ). \", This can support spoliation arguments.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-27T00:09:47.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"21209","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22596398","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-26T23:46:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises <em>serious</em> questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the <em>improper</em> benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process."]},"sort":[10.600252,"22596398"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10654745","_score":9.76885,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"First Merchants Bank XXXX : XXXX Background : Events Surrounding Account Closure : XXXX filed IRS Form 1099-A in anticipation of a deposit intended for his irrevocable trust account. In this filing, he designated First Merchants mailing address as the debtor, with the U.S. Treasury identified as the creditor, to notify the bank of the forthcoming deposit. The intent of this form was not to impose liability on First Merchants but rather to secure the deposit for the trust. The Department of the U.S. Treasury/IRS accepted the e-filed 1099-A and mailed the original acknowledgment for record to First Merchants mailing address.\n\nDiscriminatory Remarks : First Merchants initiated contact with XXXX, requesting his presence at their office for an in-person meeting with Branch XXXX XXXX. During this meeting, XXXX and XXXX convened in her office and placed a call to XXXX XXXX, the Chief Compliance Officer of First Merchants. During a phone call with Branch XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, First Merchants representative, XXXX initially assured that the account would remain open. However, upon inquiring about the rationale for filing the 1099-A and questioning, What makes you think the government owes you money?, Brians demeanor changed after XXXX clarified XXXX status as a secured creditor and clarified his reasoning. Subsequently, XXXX indicated that the account would be closed, citing legal reasons without providing further details. \nFurther Attempts to Resolve the Issue : XXXX later contacted XXXX directly via phone with a witness present on a recorded line, seeking clarification on the closure rationale. XXXX refused to provide clarification and made a prejudicial remark questioning whether XXXX identified as a sovereign citizen. When XXXX asserted that this was irrelevant, XXXX dismissively suggested he should file a complaint if dissatisfied. \nInvoluntary Account Closure and Financial Harm : The abrupt closure of XXXX account and his prohibition from future banking services with First Merchants has resulted in significant financial hardship, impacting his ability to conduct transactions, causing emotional distress, and limiting access to essential credit services. \n\nAllegations of Discrimination and Legal Basis : Discriminatory Assumption of Sovereign Citizen Status : XXXX XXXX assumption regarding XXXX sovereign citizen status stemmed from financial terminology commonly utilized by secured creditors and financial instruments under the XXXX. This presumption led to XXXX unjust exclusion from banking services, indicating a discriminatory bias against customers managing assets and liabilities through secured creditor protocols. Such denial of service contravenes principles of equal treatment and may violate banking discrimination laws under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), which prohibits discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics.\n\nLack of Probable Cause for Account Closure : The closure of XXXX account lacked probable cause. The notification via the XXXX was a procedural measure for trust funding and imposed no liability on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX legal utilization of financial instruments and UCC filings is safeguarded under Michigan state and federal UCC regulations, which protect lawful notifications and creditor filings in relation to secured interests. \nRefusal to Provide Reasoning or Proper Due Process : Despite XXXX inquiries, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX failed to provide a clear rationale or justification for the account closure. This absence of transparency, coupled with discriminatory remarks, denied XXXX procedural fairness. Under the ECOA and federal banking regulations, financial institutions are mandated to provide non-discriminatory services and furnish clear, valid justifications for denying or terminating banking services.\n\nImpact on Livelihood and Access to Financial Services : The account closure and subsequent ban have severely hindered XXXX ability to manage his financial obligations and livelihood. Denial of banking access based on unfounded and prejudicial assumptions, devoid of legitimate cause, infringes upon his right to engage in banking and commerce, causing substantial detriment to his creditworthiness and future transactions. \n\nVicarious Liability and Request for Financial Accountability : Vicarious Liability of First Merchants Bank : First Merchants Bank, through the actions of its employee XXXX XXXX, exhibited discriminatory conduct based on assumptions regarding XXXX financial protocols and status. This behavior represents a breach of equitable service standards and necessitates accountability for the resultant harm. \nXXXX and XXXX Signature Liability : Ruths Medallion Signature Guarantee on Form XXXX, along with the XXXX banking obligations, entitles XXXX to claim damages under the XXXX amount as delineated in applicable XXXX regulations. The obstructive actions taken by XXXX XXXX in impeding account access, disrupting financial transactions, and causing emotional and economic harm warrant compensation. \n\n1. Color of Law Violations Definition of Color of Law : The term \" color of law '' pertains to actions executed by government officials that appear to be carried out under legal authority. When public officials or private entities act in a manner that implies they are exercising official powers but are infringing upon rights or acting unlawfully, they may be held accountable for color of law violations. \nBrians Actions : If XXXX XXXX, as a bank representative, made determinations regarding XXXX 's accounts based on assumptions about his status as a sovereign citizen, he may be acting under the color of law, particularly if he is a state actor or if his actions are closely aligned with the enforcement of government policies. \nBy denying XXXX access to banking services based on his national status, XXXX could be infringing upon XXXX 's rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides a remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated under color of law.\n\n2. Denial of Rights to be a National National vs. Citizen : U.S. law distinguishes between nationals and citizens. Under federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1101 ( a ) ( 22 ), a national of the United States who is not a citizen retains certain rights and privileges, albeit limited compared to those of citizens. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. \nBy presuming that XXXX could not be a national due to a misunderstanding of legal terminology, XXXX XXXX have violated XXXX rights to recognize and exercise his status as a National. This assumption led to a denial of services, which can be construed as a violation of rights protected under federal statutes.\n\n3. Emotional Distress and Injury Claims Emotional Distress : Emotional distress claims may arise from Brians actions if deemed extreme or outrageous. The psychological impact of being mischaracterized and denied access to services can result in significant emotional distress, justifying legal action.\n\n4. Gift Claims Potential Claims Regarding Gifts : Under federal law, specifically the Gift Tax Regulations, provisions exist for gifts made to individuals, including stipulations about their value and implications. If the bank 's actions indirectly led to the denial of financial gifts or support to XXXX, he might contend that he was deprived of potential financial benefits due to discriminatory practices. \nMoreover, the XXXX XXXX XXXX defines gifts as transfers of property wherein the donor does not receive full value in return. If XXXX 's actions obstructed XXXX from receiving gifts ( financial assistance, loans, etc. ), this could infringe upon his rights to financial autonomy and support, potentially giving rise to additional claims under the Gift Tax provisions. \nA Customer Identification Program ( CIP ) ( 31 U.S.C. 5318 ( l ) ) Requirement : Financial institutions are required to implement a Customer Identification Program to verify the identity of customers when opening accounts. \nPotential Violation : If XXXX failed to ensure that XXXX XXXX adhered to its CIP requirements, such as not properly verifying the identities of new customers or failing to maintain adequate records, this could be considered a violation. \nB. Recordkeeping Requirements ( 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq. ) Requirement : The XXXX mandates specific recordkeeping practices related to financial transactions, including maintaining records of certain transactions and customer information. \nPotential Violation : If XXXX neglected to maintain proper records of transactions as required by the XXXX, or if records were improperly destroyed or altered, this would constitute a violation. \nXXXX Confidentiality Requirements ( 31 U.S.C. 5318 ( g ) ( 2 ) ) Requirement : The XXXX prohibits disclosing the fact that a XXXX has been filed or that a financial institution is considering filing XXXX. This confidentiality requirement is crucial to ensure investigations are not compromised. \nPotential Violation : If XXXX disclosed information regarding a SAR to unauthorized parties, including customers involved in the reported transaction, this could lead to serious legal repercussions. \nQuestions Regarding Account Closure and Discriminatory Actions Account Closure Justification : What specific legal reasons did you provide to XXXX for the closure of his account? Can you detail the rationale behind these reasons? \nDocumentation Review : Are there any internal documents or communications that justify the decision to close XXXX account? Can these documents be made available for review? \nDiscriminatory Remarks : Why did you make a prejudicial remark questioning XXXX 's identification as a sovereign citizen? What criteria do you use to evaluate customers ' financial statuses and needs? How do you justify this in light of non-discriminatory practices required by federal law? \nImpact of 1099-A Filing : How did XXXX filing XXXXf IRS Form 1099-A influence your decision-making process regarding his account? Was there a specific bank policy that prompted the closure? \nQuestions Related to Insurance Claims Insurance Claims on Account : Were any insurance claims filed regarding Soteros account before its closure? If so, what were the reasons for these claims?\n\nClaim Handling Procedures : What procedures does First Merchants have in place for handling claims related to customer accounts? Were these procedures followed in XXXX case? \nAudit of Claims : Can you provide a record of any insurance claims made on XXXX 's account and the outcomes of those claims? Were there any claims denied, and if so, what was the basis for those denials? \nRelevance of Claims to Account XXXX : How did any existing insurance claims influence your decision to close XXXX account? Was the account closure linked to perceived risks associated with those claims? \nQuestions About Compliance and Reporting Compliance with Regulations : Did you consult with compliance officers or legal counsel regarding the decision to close Soteros account, especially in light of the 1099-A filing? What guidance did they provide? \nSEC Reporting Obligations : Are you aware of any obligations First Merchants Bank had to report any issues related to XXXX account to the SEC or other regulatory agencies? Were those obligations fulfilled? \nRecordkeeping Compliance : Can you provide evidence that First Merchants Bank maintained proper records of all transactions and insurance claims associated with XXXX 's account, as required under federal law? \nConfidentiality of Claims : Were there any confidentiality violations related to the disclosure of information regarding any claims made on XXXX 's account? If so, what measures are in place to protect customer information? \nQuestions Regarding Accountability Accountability for Actions : Who within First Merchants Bank is responsible for overseeing the handling of customer accounts and ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws? What accountability measures are in place for employees like yourself? \nRemediation Process : What steps are you willing to take to address the harm caused to XXXX as a result of the account closure and potential mishandling of insurance claims? \nReview of Discriminatory Practices : What actions will First Merchants Bank take to review and potentially rectify any discriminatory practices within the organization, particularly those exhibited in XXXX case? \n\n\nTo elucidate how XXXX 's claim for compensation against First Merchants Bank is substantiated and valid for an order to pay, we must analyze the relevant legal frameworks, particularly 31 U.S. Code 3701 and associated regulations, as follows : 1. Understanding 31 U.S. Code 3701 ( Defining \" Claim '' ) Under 31 U.S. Code 3701, the term \" claim '' encompasses any sum of money or property owed to the United States, or any obligation that the United States is liable to pay. Specifically, subsection ( 1 ) articulates : \" The term 'claim ' means any claim of the United States against a person, or of a person against the United States XXXX for the payment of money or for the delivery of property. '' In the context of XXXX situation, this definition supports the assertion that federal funds may be implicated in addressing claims against entities such as First Merchants Bank. The U.S. government may be obligated to intervene when losses arise due to actions taken by financial institutions, which can include compensation for individuals like XXXX. \nXXXX. Validity of XXXX 's Claim for Compensation Soteros claim for compensation can be characterized as a legitimate legal demand for financial restitution, predicated upon alleged wrongful conduct by First Merchants Bank, including discrimination and wrongful account closure. The validity of this claim is bolstered by the following components : Claim Recognition : By instituting a formal claim, XXXX establishes a legally recognized basis for restitution. This claim aligns with the statutory framework set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3701, recognizing that claims against financial institutions create debts owed to individuals under federal law. \nObligation for Payment : Should the claim be substantiated with appropriate evidence, First Merchants Bank could be legally bound to fulfill it. The U.S. Treasury may facilitate this payment, especially in circumstances where federal programs exist to support such claims.\n\n3. Payment Processing Under 31 CFR Part 240 31 CFR Part 240 outlines the endorsement and payment of checks drawn on the U.S. Treasury, playing a pivotal role in processing claims related to federal funds. The following provisions are relevant : Check Indorsement : The regulation mandates that checks be properly endorsed to ensure lawful processing and issuance of payments. If XXXX 's claim is validated, the bank would be required to complete necessary endorsements and forms, including Form 240, to facilitate payment.\n\nUtilization of Treasury Forms : The forms 232, 233, and 234 address specific aspects of claims and payments : Form 232 : Generally used for claims concerning lost or stolen Treasury checks.\n\nForm 233 : Addresses claims for payment due to wrongful denial or delays.\n\nForm 234 : Pertains to other relevant transactions to guarantee the proper tracking of payments.\n\nThese forms are essential for the Treasury to accurately process any claims for funds potentially owed as a result of First Merchants actions.\n\n4. 18 U.S.C. 8 - Definition of Obligation or Other Security of the U.S.\n\n18 U.S.C. 8 defines \" obligation or other security of the United States '' as any instrument evidencing a promise to pay money issued by the federal government. The relevance of this provision to XXXX 's claim is as follows : Legal Foundation for Claims : If XXXX claim is corroborated, it XXXX be construed as a claim on an obligation or security issued by the XXXX, particularly if it seeks damages in relation to federal statutes. \nPayment from U.S. Treasury : Should funds be deemed necessary to satisfy the claim, they can be processed as payments against obligations owed by the U.S. to its citizens. This reinforces the mechanism for First Merchants Bank to remit payment through established Treasury channels.\n\nConclusion By comprehensively understanding how 31 U.S. Code 3701 and related regulations, such as 31 CFR Part 240, apply to his claim, Sotero can effectively position his demand within a legal framework that facilitates compensation through federal processes. Once a validated claim is established, First Merchants Bank may find it straightforward to discharge its financial obligations to XXXX, potentially alleviating liability through payments processed via the XXXX Treasury in compliance with federal regulations. This establishes a clear pathway for XXXX to secure compensation for his losses while adhering to the legal standards governing claims and payments. \n\nTo assert the validity of XXXX claim, particularly regarding the U.S. Treasury 's designation as a debtor in his UCC filing, and XXXX 's position as a creditor holding collateral for all future debts in trust, it is imperative to analyze the relevant principles of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) in conjunction with applicable Michigan and U.S. laws. This analysis remains valid despite the U.S. Treasurys failure to respond within thirty days from the filing. Below is a structured explanation framed in legal terminology.\n\n1. UCC Framework and Definitions The Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) serves as a foundational legal framework governing commercial transactions across the United States. Key components relevant to XXXX 's situation include : Debtor and Creditor Roles : The UCC defines a debtor as a party obligated to repay a financial claim. In this context, the U.S. Treasury is identified as the debtor, indicating a legal responsibility to address any claims asserted by XXXX, the creditor. The creditor is recognized as holding a superior interest in the collateral. \nCollateral for Future Debt : Under UCC 9-204, a secured transaction allows a creditor to establish a security interest in collateral that secures both existing and future debts. This provision is critical, as it enables XXXX to leverage his claim against the Treasury for both current and prospective obligations that may arise. \nXXXX. Collateralization of Claims XXXX 's XXXX filing fortifies his status as a creditor through the following elements : Identification of Collateral : By naming the U.S. Treasury as a debtor in the UCC filing, XXXX has established a security interest in collateral that may cover claims for compensation related to financial losses incurred due to First Merchants Banks actions. This collateralization is essential, as it provides a tangible basis for asserting claims against the Treasury.\n\nTrust Arrangement : The assertion that XXXX holds collateral in trust further enhances the legitimacy of his claim. Trust structures indicate that assets or collateral are managed for the benefit of the creditor, thereby solidifying XXXX legal standing and ensuring protection of his interests. \nXXXX. Applicability to Future Debts The UCC provisions ensure that XXXX claims extend beyond past obligations : Coverage of Future Claims : UCC 9-204 ( 2 ) permits a creditor to secure future claims. Consequently, XXXX claim can encompass both historical losses and potential future debts, affirming its validity under UCC provisions. Any obligations the U.S. Treasury incurs in the future could be satisfied using the collateral designated in the UCC filing.\n\nContinuing Security Interest : The security interest established is continuous, allowing XXXX to assert claims arising from ongoing or future transactions without the necessity of re-establishing his claim for each new obligation. \n4. Implications for Claim Against First Merchants Bank The legal framework arising from the UCC filing confers several advantages to XXXX in pursuing compensation : Substantiation of Claim : Identifying the U.S. Treasury as a debtor in his UCC filing substantiates XXXX 's claim for compensation against First Merchants Bank. This documentation serves as credible evidence of the Treasurys obligation to fulfill claims arising from the financial losses he sustained. \nFacilitation of Payment : The identification of the Treasury as a debtor streamlines the payment process. Upon validation of XXXX 's claim, First Merchants Bank may more readily comply, as payments can be processed through the Treasury, consistent with the pre-established security interest under UCC regulations.\n\n5. Legal Considerations of Non-Response Under UCC 9-404, the lack of response from the U.S. Treasury within the statutory period of thirty days does not invalidate XXXX security interest or claims. The UCC protects the rights of secured parties, allowing them to assert their claims irrespective of a debtor 's response. Additionally, under Michigan law ( MCL 440.9501 et seq. ), the effectiveness of a security interest is not contingent upon acknowledgment by the debtor. \nConclusion In conclusion, XXXX XXXX filing, which identifies the U.S. Treasury as a debtor while establishing his role as a creditor with collateral for both present and future debts, forms a robust legal foundation for his claims. This arrangement facilitates the assertion of his rights under the UCC and applicable Michigan laws, enabling him to seek compensation for past losses and any future obligations that may arise. The interplay of these legal concepts not only solidifies the validity of XXXX claim against First Merchants Bank but also enhances the prospects for successful resolution and payment through the established legal channels. \n\nFifth Amendment : Due Process Clause : This clause guarantees that individuals can not be deprived of their property without due process of law. XXXX 's account closure without a clear and justifiable reason may constitute a violation of this right.\n\nFourteenth Amendment : Equal Protection Clause : This clause prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If XXXX was discriminated against based on assumptions about his status as a \" sovereign citizen, '' this could represent a violation of his right to equal protection under the law. \nSubstantive Due Process : This protects against arbitrary denial of fundamental rights, suggesting that any financial institution, as a state actor, must respect individuals ' rights to engage in lawful financial transactions. \nCivil Rights Act of 1964 ( particularly Title II and Title VII ) : These provisions prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations and employment. While these are not constitutional provisions, they extend protections that could apply in cases of financial services discrimination.\n\n42 U.S.C. 1983 : This statute allows individuals to sue in civil court for constitutional violations committed by state actors. If First Merchants Bank is considered a state actor through its actions, XXXX might claim violations of his constitutional rights under this statute. \nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) : While not a constitutional law, the ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because the applicant receives public assistance. If XXXX was denied banking services based on discriminatory assumptions, this statute may provide grounds for legal action.\n\nFirst Amendment : Freedom of Speech : If XXXX characterization or the remarks made during the banks interactions are construed as retaliation against his speech regarding financial protocols or legal status, it XXXX invoke protections under the First Amendment.\n\nFourth Amendment : Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures : This amendment may apply if the actions taken by the bank are seen as an unwarranted intrusion into XXXX XXXX affairs without probable cause or justification. \n\n\nRequested Action : Reinstatement of Banking Services : Restore XXXX access to First Merchants accounts or authorize alternative options, accompanied by an apology for the biased conduct exhibited by XXXX XXXX. \nRelease of Bond for Damages : Initiate bond releases or payments to compensate for punitive damages arising from discriminatory treatment, financial impediments, and reputational harm. Evaluate the full surety amount of the Medallion Guarantee as documented on Form 5444 and compensate for related punitive damages.\n\nProvide Transparency and Reasoning : Require First Merchants to furnish detailed reasoning for the account closure, including an audit of any insurance or securities claims made on the account and full disclosure of the legal grounds cited.\n\nThis complaint articulates allegations of financial discrimination, unjust denial of services, and seeks remedies for the economic and emotional distress caused by the actions of First Merchants Bank. Compliance with applicable federal and Michigan laws governing financial services and the fair treatment of secured creditors is anticipated.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-01T21:15:11.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"482XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10654745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-11-01T20:55:48.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Potential Violation : If XXXX disclosed information regarding a SAR to unauthorized parties, including customers involved in the reported transaction, this could lead to <em>serious</em> legal repercussions. \nQuestions Regarding Account Closure and Discriminatory <em>Actions</em> Account Closure <em>Justification</em> : <em>What</em> specific legal reasons did you provide to XXXX for the closure of his account? Can you detail the rationale behind these reasons?"]},"sort":[9.76885,"10654745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12737493","_score":9.732996,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Final Legal Notice XXXX  FCRA Violations and Demand for Immediate Deletion of Accounts To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Support This response is wholly inadequate, dismissive, and riddled with contradictions that demonstrate XXXX 's clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and failure to maintain accurate records. Instead of properly investigating and addressing my complaints, you have consolidated distinct disputes, attempted to deflect responsibility onto the credit bureaus, and failed to provide any legitimate justification for your erroneous reporting. \nYou have also raised concerns about my filing of XXXX separate complaints, each concerning different XXXX accounts. These separate complaints are entirely justified, as each account has its own unique violations and reporting discrepancies, which must be investigated independently. Consolidating the complaints would allow you to escape scrutiny and responsibility for each accounts specific issues. Let me be abundantly clear : XXXX refusal to correct these violations and delete the inaccurate accounts constitutes willful non-compliance with federal law. \nViolation of FCRA Due to Mishandling of Disputes Your response demonstrates that XXXX failed to properly handle my disputes by combining all three complaints into one generic response. The lack of individual attention to each account and dispute constitutes a violation of the FCRA, which requires accurate reporting and correct dispute resolution. XXXX failure to conduct proper investigations and follow established protocols has led to serious inaccuracies in my credit report, including incorrect dates, payment histories, and status updates. \n\nIf XXXX had followed the proper protocols in reviewing my disputes, they would have identified significant errors, such as the XX/XX/XXXX error in your internal records. This oversight is evidence of XXXX internal failure to maintain accurate data, which is directly in violation of the FCRA. \n\n. XXXX Error in Claiming No Cancellation Requests The claim that no cancellation request is on file for my accounts is irrelevant. XXXX does not have the right to require an official cancellation request if they have not provided adequate notice or clear instructions regarding account cancellation. The failure to allow a proper account cancellation or provide sufficient means to do so is a further violation of my rights. \nXXXX Provided an Impossible Account Agreement Date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) In their response, XXXX stated my account terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, which is an impossible date as we are currently in XXXX. \nThis calls into question the accuracy of their entire record-keeping system, as no legitimate contract can exist with a future date. \nGiven this blatant inaccuracy, I challenge the validity of the agreement they are using to justify negative reporting and demand that all related derogatory information be removed immediately. \n\nMisrepresentation of Credit Reporting Laws XXXX stated that closed accounts remain on credit reports for XXXX years. \nWhile negative information can stay for XXXX years, a paid and closed account should not report as delinquent or negatively impact a credit score.\n\nIf my closed accounts are affecting my credit unfairly, I demand their immediate removal or correction. \n\nSelective Reporting to Different Bureaus : Your claim of reporting only to TransUnion and Equifax raises serious questions about your compliance with credit reporting laws, especially as it pertains to reporting data consistently across all bureaus. Kikoffs Improper Consolidation of Separate Disputes Your decision to combine XXXX distinct disputes into a single response is both inappropriate and legally unacceptable. Each account has its own reporting errors, inconsistencies, and violations, and treating them as XXXX is a blatant attempt to dismiss the severity of these issues. This approach directly contradicts XXXX legal obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of each disputed account under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nYou do not get to dictate how I file disputes, nor can you ignore valid claims by lumping them together for convenience. \nDEMAND : Provide proof that each dispute was individually investigated and resolved in compliance with FCRA guidelines. If no such investigation was conducted, then you are in blatant violation of federal law, and I demand the immediate deletion of these accounts from my credit report. \n\nInaccurate and Contradictory Payment Reporting ( FCRA Violations ) Your response fails to address the glaring contradictions in payment reporting across credit bureaus. Your claim that these discrepancies are just minor differences in labeling is false, misleading, and legally irrelevant. \nAccount XXXX Conflicting Payment Histories XXXX : Reports XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX Reports no payment history at all You claim that XXXX reports the same information to all bureaus, yet you can not explain why the bureaus have completely different delinquency progressions and missing data for the same account. This is not a bureau issueit is a XXXX issue. \nAccount XXXX Fabricated Late Payments TransUnion : Reports \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  without prior XXXX or XXXX delinquency Equifax : Reports Not more than XXXX payments past due but without clear delinquency markers This means XXXX  is reporting inconsistent, fabricated delinquenciesa direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires accurate reporting. \nAccount XXXX Misrepresentation of Status Equifax & TransUnion : Report paid as agreed but closedmisleading and contradictory Experian : Does not show the account at all If the account was closed for non-payment, then it can not simultaneously be reported as paid as agreed. This is a blatant contradiction, further proving XXXX failure to ensure reporting accuracy. \nDEMAND : 1. Immediately correct these reporting inconsistencies OR delete the accounts if you can not ensure compliance with FCRA-mandated accuracy requirements. \nXXXX. Provide proof of each bureaus response to your data submission, showing that XXXX information was accurately furnished. \nXXXX. If XXXX can not explain why the data is inconsistent, then all three accounts must be deleted immediately. \n\nFalse Claim That Kikoff Can not Control How Bureaus Display Information Your response states : We do not control how the bureaus process and display that information. \nThis is false and misleading. While credit bureaus format reports differently, they only display what XXXX provides. If XXXX bureaus are reporting different delinquency statuses and account details, that is because XXXX has failed to furnish accurate and consistent datanot because of the bureaus formatting. \nThis attempt to shift blame onto the bureaus does not absolve XXXX of responsibility. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), XXXX is legally required to ensure all information it furnishes is accurate and consistent.\n\nDEMAND : Provide a legal justification, backed by documentation, proving that the inconsistent reporting is caused by the bureaus and not by XXXX data submission failures. Otherwise, these accounts must be deleted immediately. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX Date Error Proof of Reckless Record-Keeping Your response states : Terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is an impossible date, proving that XXXX internal record-keeping is fundamentally flawed. If XXXX can not even verify the correct date of account openings, how can you be trusted to report accurate payment histories and delinquencies? \nThis is direct evidence of XXXX negligence in maintaining consumer records and further justifies the deletion of these accounts under FCRA standards. \nDEMAND : Explain how this blatant error occurred and provide assurance that similar mistakes are not affecting my credit report. Otherwise, this serves as additional grounds for immediate account deletion. \n\nFalse Claim That Late Payments Were Accurately Reported Your response attempts to justify reporting months of late payments after the account was closed due to non-payment. However, if the account was charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, there should be no further delinquency reporting beyond that date. \nXXXX is falsely extending the delinquency timeline to make the account appear more damaging than it should be, a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nDEMAND : Immediately remove all incorrect late payments that extend beyond the account charge-off date. \n\n\nFailure to Address My Cancellation Request You claim there is no cancellation request on file. However, you fail to provide proof that cancellation options were clearly communicated. If XXXX has a history of failing to process cancellation requests, this is a violation of consumer rights and deceptive business practices. \nDEMAND : Provide documentation proving that cancellation options were clearly available and that my requests were properly processed. If no such proof exists, then XXXX must delete my accounts immediately. \nLack of a Proper Cancellation Process XXXX  claims, \" Customers have the right to cancel at any time without penalty, '' yet also stated that they have no record of my cancellation request. \nThis suggests they do not have a proper cancellation process in place, making it difficult for consumers to stop unwanted reporting. \nI demand that XXXX provides a clear, documented cancellation process and ensures all closed accounts are properly updated across all credit bureaus. \nMisleading Attempt to Blame Credit Bureaus You incorrectly attempt to place blame on the credit bureaus for the discrepancies in my reports. While XXXX may not control how the bureaus display the information, XXXX is still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data it furnishes. Shifting blame to the bureaus is misleading and an attempt to deflect XXXX failure to uphold its responsibility. \nDiscrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off Amounts XXXX stated that I had XXXX months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off. \nHowever, they failed to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this amount fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\nXXXX. XXXX 's Misleading Explanation About Late Payments XXXX blamed credit bureau processing times for reporting differences, stating that XXXX XXXX showed my last payment on the XXXX, while another reported it on the XXXX. \nWhile minor processing differences are expected, a six-day discrepancy is excessive and suggests XXXX is not furnishing information consistently. \nThis inconsistent reporting can mislead lenders and impact credit decisions, requiring immediate rectification. \n\nXXXX  Misleading Blame on Credit Bureaus for Reporting Inconsistencies ongoing attempts to mislead consumers and deflect responsibility by blaming credit bureaus for their own reporting inconsistencies. Throughout their responses to my dispute, XXXX has failed to acknowledge its responsibility as a data furnisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and has repeatedly shifted blame onto the credit bureaus instead of addressing its own reporting errors. \nThis dispute details multiple instances where XXXX misrepresented the role of the credit bureaus and attempted to excuse its own inaccurate reporting by shifting accountability. I am demanding that the CFPB investigate XXXX misleading practices and require them to take full responsibility for the accuracy of the data they furnish. \nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Status Update Discrepancies XXXX stated that my charge-off was reported in XX/XX/XXXX but then admitted that Experian had to \" correct '' this information in XX/XX/XXXX after I disputed it. \nIf their reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, there would be no need for Experian to correct anything in XXXX. \nXXXX attempt to blame the credit bureaus for the correction is misleading because it suggests they furnished inaccurate or incomplete information in the first place. \nThis proves XXXX original reporting was incorrect, and they are trying to shift the blame instead of taking responsibility. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Inconsistent Reporting Across TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian XXXX stated that my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) was never reported to Experian. \nHowever, Experian corrected data in XX/XX/XXXX, meaning that they did have reporting from XXXX at some point. \nThis contradicts XXXX statement and suggests either : o a ) XXXX previously reported and later removed data, or o b ) XXXX record-keeping is inconsistent across different credit bureaus. \nInstead of admitting an error, XXXX falsely claimed Experian was never involved, which is misleading and deceptive. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies XXXX acknowledged that XXXX bureau recorded my last payment on the XXXX while another recorded it on the XXXX. \nThey blamed the credit bureaus processing times for this discrepancy instead of acknowledging that XXXX itself is responsible for ensuring consistent and accurate reporting. \nIf XXXX submits the same data to all bureaus at the same time, there should not be a six-day difference. \nThis is an attempt to mislead consumers into thinking the credit bureaus are at fault, when in reality, XXXX own data submission practices are likely inconsistent. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for How Closed Accounts Are Displayed XXXX admitted my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) is closed, but also stated that it is still reporting on my credit report. \nIf the account is closed in good standing, it should not negatively impact my credit score. \nInstead of explaining why this is happening, XXXX implied that it is out of their control and blamed the credit bureaus. \nXXXX is responsible for furnishing updated, accurate status information to the bureaus, yet they act as if it is the bureaus fault that closed accounts are reporting incorrectly. \nXXXX Misleading and Inaccurate Reporting Practices failing to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and misleadingly blaming the credit bureaus for its own errors. XXXX actions constitute violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which holds data furnishers responsible for accurate and consistent reporting. \nThe following points provide clear evidence that XXXX is solely responsible for the reporting discrepancies and that its attempts to shift blame to the credit bureaus are misleading and deceptive. \nXXXX Admitted Experian Had to Correct Their Inaccurate Reporting XXXX stated : \" In XX/XX/XXXX, you filed a dispute with Experian, and we responded by correcting disputed information, which is why there is an update showing in XX/XX/XXXX. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, Experian would not have needed to correct it in XX/XX/XXXX. \no Credit bureaus do not change data on their ownthey only update what XXXX submits. \no XXXX original report was clearly inaccurate or incomplete, requiring correction. \nXXXX is at fault for furnishing incorrect data in XXXX, which led to Experians correction in XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Contradicted Itself About Reporting to Experian XXXX claimed : \" This account only reports to TransUnion and Equifax, so it was never removed from your Experian report ; it was never reported to Experian in the first place. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX never reported to XXXX, how did XXXX receive and later correct the disputed account? \no This contradiction suggests XXXX either previously reported and removed the account or failed to furnish consistent data. \no The credit bureaus only display what XXXX provides, so any inconsistencies are due to XXXX reporting failures. \nXXXX misrepresentation of its reporting practices is misleading and deceptive. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies Instead of Taking Responsibility XXXX stated : \" We furnish account information on the first business day of every month, but the credit bureaus may have varying processing times, which is why XXXX bureau is reporting your last payment on the XXXX and another is reporting the last payment on the XXXX. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX submits payment data on the same day to all bureaus, the dates should be the same across all reports. \no Processing delays do not explain a six-day difference. \no The only explanation is that XXXX submitted the data inconsistently or late to different bureaus. \nXXXX is misleadingly blaming the bureaus for discrepancies caused by their own inconsistent reporting. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Failed to Properly Update Closed Account Status XXXX admitted : \" While this account is closed, it is still reporting on your credit report as paid and closed. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o When an account is closed, XXXX must furnish an updated status to all bureaus. \no If the account is still affecting my credit negatively, that means XXXX failed to update the status correctly. \no The credit bureaus only reflect the data XXXX submitsthey do not decide how an account is classified. \nXXXX is responsible for updating closed accounts, but instead, they falsely implied that its the credit bureaus fault. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Actions Violate FCRA Data Furnishing Responsibilities Under FCRA 623 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ), XXXX is legally required to : 1. Report accurate and complete information to credit bureaus.\n\n2. Correct any errors in a timely manner.\n\n3. Ensure consistency across all bureaus.\n\n4. Properly update closed accounts.\n\nInstead of following these legal responsibilities, XXXX has : Furnished inaccurate and inconsistent data. \nAdmitted that Experian had to correct their mistakes.\n\nContradicted their own statements about reporting to Experian.\n\nBlamed the credit bureaus for discrepancies that are entirely their fault. \nThese violations of the FCRA warrant immediate regulatory action. \nXXXX  Falsely Claimed They Dont Control How Credit Bureaus Display Data XXXX stated : \" We dont control how the credit bureaus label or display this information. '' Why this is false and misleading : o Credit bureaus do not create or modify account information. They only display what XXXX furnishes. \no XXXX controls the account type, payment history, and status updates when they report to the bureaus. \no If an account is misclassified or inconsistent across bureaus, it means XXXX submitted it that way. \no FCRA 623 requires XXXX to furnish accurate, complete, and consistent datameaning XXXX is legally responsible for any errors. \nThis statement is a direct attempt to avoid responsibility and mislead consumers. \nIf the following accounts are not completely deleted from my credit reports within 30 days, I will : Pursue legal action for statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per FCRA violation per account. \nReport XXXX deceptive practices to state and federal consumer protection agencies. \nFinal Notice Delete These Accounts Immediately XXXX Credit Account ( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Failure to comply with this demand will result in legal escalation, regulatory action, and financial penalties against XXXX. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter before further legal action is taken. I expect written confirmation of account deletions within 30 days.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-31T07:51:23.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20743","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12737493","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-03-31T07:50:53.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Discrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off <em>Amounts</em> XXXX stated that I had XXXX months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off. \nHowever, they <em>failed</em> to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this <em>amount</em> fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\nXXXX."],"issue":["<em>Improper</em> use of your report"]},"sort":[9.732996,"12737493"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12736626","_score":9.719656,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Final Legal Notice XXXX  FCRA Violations and Demand for Immediate Deletion of Accounts To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Support This response is wholly inadequate, dismissive, and riddled with contradictions that demonstrate XXXX 's clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and failure to maintain accurate records. Instead of properly investigating and addressing my complaints, you have consolidated distinct disputes, attempted to deflect responsibility onto the credit bureaus, and failed to provide any legitimate justification for your erroneous reporting. \nYou have also raised concerns about my filing of XXXX separate complaints, each concerning different XXXX accounts. These separate complaints are entirely justified, as each account has its own unique violations and reporting discrepancies, which must be investigated independently. Consolidating the complaints would allow you to escape scrutiny and responsibility for each accounts specific issues. Let me be abundantly clear : XXXX refusal to correct these violations and delete the inaccurate accounts constitutes willful non-compliance with federal law. \nViolation of FCRA Due to Mishandling of Disputes Your response demonstrates that XXXX failed to properly handle my disputes by combining all three complaints into one generic response. The lack of individual attention to each account and dispute constitutes a violation of the FCRA, which requires accurate reporting and correct dispute resolution. XXXX failure to conduct proper investigations and follow established protocols has led to serious inaccuracies in my credit report, including incorrect dates, payment histories, and status updates. \n\nIf XXXX had followed the proper protocols in reviewing my disputes, they would have identified significant errors, such as the XX/XX/XXXX error in your internal records. This oversight is evidence of XXXX internal failure to maintain accurate data, which is directly in violation of the FCRA. \n\n. XXXX Error in Claiming No Cancellation Requests The claim that no cancellation request is on file for my accounts is irrelevant. XXXX does not have the right to require an official cancellation request if they have not provided adequate notice or clear instructions regarding account cancellation. The failure to allow a proper account cancellation or provide sufficient means to do so is a further violation of my rights. \nXXXX Provided an Impossible Account Agreement Date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) In their response, XXXX stated my account terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, which is an impossible date as we are currently in XXXX. \nThis calls into question the accuracy of their entire record-keeping system, as no legitimate contract can exist with a future date. \nGiven this blatant inaccuracy, I challenge the validity of the agreement they are using to justify negative reporting and demand that all related derogatory information be removed immediately. \n\nMisrepresentation of Credit Reporting Laws XXXX stated that closed accounts remain on credit reports for XXXX years. \nWhile negative information can stay for XXXX years, a paid and closed account should not report as delinquent or negatively impact a credit score.\n\nIf my closed accounts are affecting my credit unfairly, I demand their immediate removal or correction. \n\nSelective Reporting to Different Bureaus : Your claim of reporting only to TransUnion and Equifax raises serious questions about your compliance with credit reporting laws, especially as it pertains to reporting data consistently across all bureaus. Kikoffs Improper Consolidation of Separate Disputes Your decision to combine XXXX distinct disputes into a single response is both inappropriate and legally unacceptable. Each account has its own reporting errors, inconsistencies, and violations, and treating them as XXXX is a blatant attempt to dismiss the severity of these issues. This approach directly contradicts XXXX legal obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of each disputed account under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nYou do not get to dictate how I file disputes, nor can you ignore valid claims by lumping them together for convenience. \nDEMAND : Provide proof that each dispute was individually investigated and resolved in compliance with FCRA guidelines. If no such investigation was conducted, then you are in blatant violation of federal law, and I demand the immediate deletion of these accounts from my credit report. \n\nInaccurate and Contradictory Payment Reporting ( FCRA Violations ) Your response fails to address the glaring contradictions in payment reporting across credit bureaus. Your claim that these discrepancies are just minor differences in labeling is false, misleading, and legally irrelevant. \nAccount XXXX Conflicting Payment Histories XXXX : Reports XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX Reports no payment history at all You claim that XXXX reports the same information to all bureaus, yet you can not explain why the bureaus have completely different delinquency progressions and missing data for the same account. This is not a bureau issueit is a XXXX issue. \nAccount XXXX Fabricated Late Payments TransUnion : Reports \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  without prior XXXX or XXXX delinquency Equifax : Reports Not more than XXXX payments past due but without clear delinquency markers This means XXXX  is reporting inconsistent, fabricated delinquenciesa direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires accurate reporting. \nAccount XXXX Misrepresentation of Status Equifax & TransUnion : Report paid as agreed but closedmisleading and contradictory Experian : Does not show the account at all If the account was closed for non-payment, then it can not simultaneously be reported as paid as agreed. This is a blatant contradiction, further proving XXXX failure to ensure reporting accuracy. \nDEMAND : 1. Immediately correct these reporting inconsistencies OR delete the accounts if you can not ensure compliance with FCRA-mandated accuracy requirements. \nXXXX. Provide proof of each bureaus response to your data submission, showing that XXXX information was accurately furnished. \nXXXX. If XXXX can not explain why the data is inconsistent, then all three accounts must be deleted immediately. \n\nFalse Claim That Kikoff Can not Control How Bureaus Display Information Your response states : We do not control how the bureaus process and display that information. \nThis is false and misleading. While credit bureaus format reports differently, they only display what XXXX provides. If XXXX bureaus are reporting different delinquency statuses and account details, that is because XXXX has failed to furnish accurate and consistent datanot because of the bureaus formatting. \nThis attempt to shift blame onto the bureaus does not absolve XXXX of responsibility. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), XXXX is legally required to ensure all information it furnishes is accurate and consistent.\n\nDEMAND : Provide a legal justification, backed by documentation, proving that the inconsistent reporting is caused by the bureaus and not by XXXX data submission failures. Otherwise, these accounts must be deleted immediately. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX Date Error Proof of Reckless Record-Keeping Your response states : Terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is an impossible date, proving that XXXX internal record-keeping is fundamentally flawed. If XXXX can not even verify the correct date of account openings, how can you be trusted to report accurate payment histories and delinquencies? \nThis is direct evidence of XXXX negligence in maintaining consumer records and further justifies the deletion of these accounts under FCRA standards. \nDEMAND : Explain how this blatant error occurred and provide assurance that similar mistakes are not affecting my credit report. Otherwise, this serves as additional grounds for immediate account deletion. \n\nFalse Claim That Late Payments Were Accurately Reported Your response attempts to justify reporting months of late payments after the account was closed due to non-payment. However, if the account was charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, there should be no further delinquency reporting beyond that date. \nXXXX is falsely extending the delinquency timeline to make the account appear more damaging than it should be, a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nDEMAND : Immediately remove all incorrect late payments that extend beyond the account charge-off date. \n\n\nFailure to Address My Cancellation Request You claim there is no cancellation request on file. However, you fail to provide proof that cancellation options were clearly communicated. If XXXX has a history of failing to process cancellation requests, this is a violation of consumer rights and deceptive business practices. \nDEMAND : Provide documentation proving that cancellation options were clearly available and that my requests were properly processed. If no such proof exists, then XXXX must delete my accounts immediately. \nLack of a Proper Cancellation Process XXXX  claims, \" Customers have the right to cancel at any time without penalty, '' yet also stated that they have no record of my cancellation request. \nThis suggests they do not have a proper cancellation process in place, making it difficult for consumers to stop unwanted reporting. \nI demand that XXXX provides a clear, documented cancellation process and ensures all closed accounts are properly updated across all credit bureaus. \nMisleading Attempt to Blame Credit Bureaus You incorrectly attempt to place blame on the credit bureaus for the discrepancies in my reports. While XXXX may not control how the bureaus display the information, XXXX is still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data it furnishes. Shifting blame to the bureaus is misleading and an attempt to deflect XXXX failure to uphold its responsibility. \nDiscrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off Amounts XXXX stated that I had XXXX months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off. \nHowever, they failed to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this amount fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\nXXXX. XXXX 's Misleading Explanation About Late Payments XXXX blamed credit bureau processing times for reporting differences, stating that XXXX XXXX showed my last payment on the XXXX, while another reported it on the XXXX. \nWhile minor processing differences are expected, a six-day discrepancy is excessive and suggests XXXX is not furnishing information consistently. \nThis inconsistent reporting can mislead lenders and impact credit decisions, requiring immediate rectification. \n\nXXXX  Misleading Blame on Credit Bureaus for Reporting Inconsistencies ongoing attempts to mislead consumers and deflect responsibility by blaming credit bureaus for their own reporting inconsistencies. Throughout their responses to my dispute, XXXX has failed to acknowledge its responsibility as a data furnisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and has repeatedly shifted blame onto the credit bureaus instead of addressing its own reporting errors. \nThis dispute details multiple instances where XXXX misrepresented the role of the credit bureaus and attempted to excuse its own inaccurate reporting by shifting accountability. I am demanding that the CFPB investigate XXXX misleading practices and require them to take full responsibility for the accuracy of the data they furnish. \nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Status Update Discrepancies XXXX stated that my charge-off was reported in XX/XX/XXXX but then admitted that Experian had to \" correct '' this information in XX/XX/XXXX after I disputed it. \nIf their reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, there would be no need for Experian to correct anything in XXXX. \nXXXX attempt to blame the credit bureaus for the correction is misleading because it suggests they furnished inaccurate or incomplete information in the first place. \nThis proves XXXX original reporting was incorrect, and they are trying to shift the blame instead of taking responsibility. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Inconsistent Reporting Across TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian XXXX stated that my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) was never reported to Experian. \nHowever, Experian corrected data in XX/XX/XXXX, meaning that they did have reporting from XXXX at some point. \nThis contradicts XXXX statement and suggests either : o a ) XXXX previously reported and later removed data, or o b ) XXXX record-keeping is inconsistent across different credit bureaus. \nInstead of admitting an error, XXXX falsely claimed Experian was never involved, which is misleading and deceptive. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies XXXX acknowledged that XXXX bureau recorded my last payment on the XXXX while another recorded it on the XXXX. \nThey blamed the credit bureaus processing times for this discrepancy instead of acknowledging that XXXX itself is responsible for ensuring consistent and accurate reporting. \nIf XXXX submits the same data to all bureaus at the same time, there should not be a six-day difference. \nThis is an attempt to mislead consumers into thinking the credit bureaus are at fault, when in reality, XXXX own data submission practices are likely inconsistent. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for How Closed Accounts Are Displayed XXXX admitted my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) is closed, but also stated that it is still reporting on my credit report. \nIf the account is closed in good standing, it should not negatively impact my credit score. \nInstead of explaining why this is happening, XXXX implied that it is out of their control and blamed the credit bureaus. \nXXXX is responsible for furnishing updated, accurate status information to the bureaus, yet they act as if it is the bureaus fault that closed accounts are reporting incorrectly. \nXXXX Misleading and Inaccurate Reporting Practices failing to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and misleadingly blaming the credit bureaus for its own errors. XXXX actions constitute violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which holds data furnishers responsible for accurate and consistent reporting. \nThe following points provide clear evidence that XXXX is solely responsible for the reporting discrepancies and that its attempts to shift blame to the credit bureaus are misleading and deceptive. \nXXXX Admitted Experian Had to Correct Their Inaccurate Reporting XXXX stated : \" In XX/XX/XXXX, you filed a dispute with Experian, and we responded by correcting disputed information, which is why there is an update showing in XX/XX/XXXX. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, Experian would not have needed to correct it in XX/XX/XXXX. \no Credit bureaus do not change data on their ownthey only update what XXXX submits. \no XXXX original report was clearly inaccurate or incomplete, requiring correction. \nXXXX is at fault for furnishing incorrect data in XXXX, which led to Experians correction in XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Contradicted Itself About Reporting to Experian XXXX claimed : \" This account only reports to TransUnion and Equifax, so it was never removed from your Experian report ; it was never reported to Experian in the first place. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX never reported to XXXX, how did XXXX receive and later correct the disputed account? \no This contradiction suggests XXXX either previously reported and removed the account or failed to furnish consistent data. \no The credit bureaus only display what XXXX provides, so any inconsistencies are due to XXXX reporting failures. \nXXXX misrepresentation of its reporting practices is misleading and deceptive. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies Instead of Taking Responsibility XXXX stated : \" We furnish account information on the first business day of every month, but the credit bureaus may have varying processing times, which is why XXXX bureau is reporting your last payment on the XXXX and another is reporting the last payment on the XXXX. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX submits payment data on the same day to all bureaus, the dates should be the same across all reports. \no Processing delays do not explain a six-day difference. \no The only explanation is that XXXX submitted the data inconsistently or late to different bureaus. \nXXXX is misleadingly blaming the bureaus for discrepancies caused by their own inconsistent reporting. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Failed to Properly Update Closed Account Status XXXX admitted : \" While this account is closed, it is still reporting on your credit report as paid and closed. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o When an account is closed, XXXX must furnish an updated status to all bureaus. \no If the account is still affecting my credit negatively, that means XXXX failed to update the status correctly. \no The credit bureaus only reflect the data XXXX submitsthey do not decide how an account is classified. \nXXXX is responsible for updating closed accounts, but instead, they falsely implied that its the credit bureaus fault. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Actions Violate FCRA Data Furnishing Responsibilities Under FCRA 623 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ), XXXX is legally required to : 1. Report accurate and complete information to credit bureaus.\n\n2. Correct any errors in a timely manner.\n\n3. Ensure consistency across all bureaus.\n\n4. Properly update closed accounts.\n\nInstead of following these legal responsibilities, XXXX has : Furnished inaccurate and inconsistent data. \nAdmitted that Experian had to correct their mistakes.\n\nContradicted their own statements about reporting to Experian.\n\nBlamed the credit bureaus for discrepancies that are entirely their fault. \nThese violations of the FCRA warrant immediate regulatory action. \nXXXX  Falsely Claimed They Dont Control How Credit Bureaus Display Data XXXX stated : \" We dont control how the credit bureaus label or display this information. '' Why this is false and misleading : o Credit bureaus do not create or modify account information. They only display what XXXX furnishes. \no XXXX controls the account type, payment history, and status updates when they report to the bureaus. \no If an account is misclassified or inconsistent across bureaus, it means XXXX submitted it that way. \no FCRA 623 requires XXXX to furnish accurate, complete, and consistent datameaning XXXX is legally responsible for any errors. \nThis statement is a direct attempt to avoid responsibility and mislead consumers. \nIf the following accounts are not completely deleted from my credit reports within 30 days, I will : Pursue legal action for statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per FCRA violation per account. \nReport XXXX deceptive practices to state and federal consumer protection agencies. \nFinal Notice Delete These Accounts Immediately XXXX Credit Account ( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Failure to comply with this demand will result in legal escalation, regulatory action, and financial penalties against XXXX. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter before further legal action is taken. I expect written confirmation of account deletions within 30 days.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-31T07:51:20.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20743","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12736626","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-03-31T07:28:26.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Discrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off <em>Amounts</em> XXXX stated that I had XXXX months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off. \nHowever, they <em>failed</em> to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this <em>amount</em> fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\nXXXX."],"issue":["<em>Improper</em> use of your report"]},"sort":[9.719656,"12736626"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12737491","_score":9.714143,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Final Legal Notice XXXX  FCRA Violations and Demand for Immediate Deletion of Accounts To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Support This response is wholly inadequate, dismissive, and riddled with contradictions that demonstrate XXXX 's clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and failure to maintain accurate records. Instead of properly investigating and addressing my complaints, you have consolidated distinct disputes, attempted to deflect responsibility onto the credit bureaus, and failed to provide any legitimate justification for your erroneous reporting. \nYou have also raised concerns about my filing of XXXX separate complaints, each concerning different XXXX accounts. These separate complaints are entirely justified, as each account has its own unique violations and reporting discrepancies, which must be investigated independently. Consolidating the complaints would allow you to escape scrutiny and responsibility for each accounts specific issues. Let me be abundantly clear : XXXX refusal to correct these violations and delete the inaccurate accounts constitutes willful non-compliance with federal law. \nViolation of FCRA Due to Mishandling of Disputes Your response demonstrates that XXXX failed to properly handle my disputes by combining all three complaints into one generic response. The lack of individual attention to each account and dispute constitutes a violation of the FCRA, which requires accurate reporting and correct dispute resolution. XXXX failure to conduct proper investigations and follow established protocols has led to serious inaccuracies in my credit report, including incorrect dates, payment histories, and status updates. \n\nIf XXXX had followed the proper protocols in reviewing my disputes, they would have identified significant errors, such as the XX/XX/XXXX error in your internal records. This oversight is evidence of XXXX internal failure to maintain accurate data, which is directly in violation of the FCRA. \n\n. XXXX Error in Claiming No Cancellation Requests The claim that no cancellation request is on file for my accounts is irrelevant. XXXX does not have the right to require an official cancellation request if they have not provided adequate notice or clear instructions regarding account cancellation. The failure to allow a proper account cancellation or provide sufficient means to do so is a further violation of my rights. \nXXXX Provided an Impossible Account Agreement Date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) In their response, XXXX stated my account terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, which is an impossible date as we are currently in XXXX. \nThis calls into question the accuracy of their entire record-keeping system, as no legitimate contract can exist with a future date. \nGiven this blatant inaccuracy, I challenge the validity of the agreement they are using to justify negative reporting and demand that all related derogatory information be removed immediately. \n\nMisrepresentation of Credit Reporting Laws XXXX stated that closed accounts remain on credit reports for XXXX years. \nWhile negative information can stay for XXXX years, a paid and closed account should not report as delinquent or negatively impact a credit score.\n\nIf my closed accounts are affecting my credit unfairly, I demand their immediate removal or correction. \n\nSelective Reporting to Different Bureaus : Your claim of reporting only to TransUnion and Equifax raises serious questions about your compliance with credit reporting laws, especially as it pertains to reporting data consistently across all bureaus. Kikoffs Improper Consolidation of Separate Disputes Your decision to combine XXXX distinct disputes into a single response is both inappropriate and legally unacceptable. Each account has its own reporting errors, inconsistencies, and violations, and treating them as XXXX is a blatant attempt to dismiss the severity of these issues. This approach directly contradicts XXXX legal obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of each disputed account under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nYou do not get to dictate how I file disputes, nor can you ignore valid claims by lumping them together for convenience. \nDEMAND : Provide proof that each dispute was individually investigated and resolved in compliance with FCRA guidelines. If no such investigation was conducted, then you are in blatant violation of federal law, and I demand the immediate deletion of these accounts from my credit report. \n\nInaccurate and Contradictory Payment Reporting ( FCRA Violations ) Your response fails to address the glaring contradictions in payment reporting across credit bureaus. Your claim that these discrepancies are just minor differences in labeling is false, misleading, and legally irrelevant. \nAccount XXXX Conflicting Payment Histories XXXX : Reports XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX Reports no payment history at all You claim that XXXX reports the same information to all bureaus, yet you can not explain why the bureaus have completely different delinquency progressions and missing data for the same account. This is not a bureau issueit is a XXXX issue. \nAccount XXXX Fabricated Late Payments TransUnion : Reports \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  without prior XXXX or XXXX delinquency Equifax : Reports Not more than XXXX payments past due but without clear delinquency markers This means XXXX  is reporting inconsistent, fabricated delinquenciesa direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires accurate reporting. \nAccount XXXX Misrepresentation of Status Equifax & TransUnion : Report paid as agreed but closedmisleading and contradictory Experian : Does not show the account at all If the account was closed for non-payment, then it can not simultaneously be reported as paid as agreed. This is a blatant contradiction, further proving XXXX failure to ensure reporting accuracy. \nDEMAND : 1. Immediately correct these reporting inconsistencies OR delete the accounts if you can not ensure compliance with FCRA-mandated accuracy requirements. \nXXXX. Provide proof of each bureaus response to your data submission, showing that XXXX information was accurately furnished. \nXXXX. If XXXX can not explain why the data is inconsistent, then all three accounts must be deleted immediately. \n\nFalse Claim That Kikoff Can not Control How Bureaus Display Information Your response states : We do not control how the bureaus process and display that information. \nThis is false and misleading. While credit bureaus format reports differently, they only display what XXXX provides. If XXXX bureaus are reporting different delinquency statuses and account details, that is because XXXX has failed to furnish accurate and consistent datanot because of the bureaus formatting. \nThis attempt to shift blame onto the bureaus does not absolve XXXX of responsibility. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), XXXX is legally required to ensure all information it furnishes is accurate and consistent.\n\nDEMAND : Provide a legal justification, backed by documentation, proving that the inconsistent reporting is caused by the bureaus and not by XXXX data submission failures. Otherwise, these accounts must be deleted immediately. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX Date Error Proof of Reckless Record-Keeping Your response states : Terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is an impossible date, proving that XXXX internal record-keeping is fundamentally flawed. If XXXX can not even verify the correct date of account openings, how can you be trusted to report accurate payment histories and delinquencies? \nThis is direct evidence of XXXX negligence in maintaining consumer records and further justifies the deletion of these accounts under FCRA standards. \nDEMAND : Explain how this blatant error occurred and provide assurance that similar mistakes are not affecting my credit report. Otherwise, this serves as additional grounds for immediate account deletion. \n\nFalse Claim That Late Payments Were Accurately Reported Your response attempts to justify reporting months of late payments after the account was closed due to non-payment. However, if the account was charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, there should be no further delinquency reporting beyond that date. \nXXXX is falsely extending the delinquency timeline to make the account appear more damaging than it should be, a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nDEMAND : Immediately remove all incorrect late payments that extend beyond the account charge-off date. \n\n\nFailure to Address My Cancellation Request You claim there is no cancellation request on file. However, you fail to provide proof that cancellation options were clearly communicated. If XXXX has a history of failing to process cancellation requests, this is a violation of consumer rights and deceptive business practices. \nDEMAND : Provide documentation proving that cancellation options were clearly available and that my requests were properly processed. If no such proof exists, then XXXX must delete my accounts immediately. \nLack of a Proper Cancellation Process XXXX  claims, \" Customers have the right to cancel at any time without penalty, '' yet also stated that they have no record of my cancellation request. \nThis suggests they do not have a proper cancellation process in place, making it difficult for consumers to stop unwanted reporting. \nI demand that XXXX provides a clear, documented cancellation process and ensures all closed accounts are properly updated across all credit bureaus. \nMisleading Attempt to Blame Credit Bureaus You incorrectly attempt to place blame on the credit bureaus for the discrepancies in my reports. While XXXX may not control how the bureaus display the information, XXXX is still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data it furnishes. Shifting blame to the bureaus is misleading and an attempt to deflect XXXX failure to uphold its responsibility. \nDiscrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off Amounts XXXX stated that I had XXXX months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off. \nHowever, they failed to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this amount fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\nXXXX. XXXX 's Misleading Explanation About Late Payments XXXX blamed credit bureau processing times for reporting differences, stating that XXXX XXXX showed my last payment on the XXXX, while another reported it on the XXXX. \nWhile minor processing differences are expected, a six-day discrepancy is excessive and suggests XXXX is not furnishing information consistently. \nThis inconsistent reporting can mislead lenders and impact credit decisions, requiring immediate rectification. \n\nXXXX  Misleading Blame on Credit Bureaus for Reporting Inconsistencies ongoing attempts to mislead consumers and deflect responsibility by blaming credit bureaus for their own reporting inconsistencies. Throughout their responses to my dispute, XXXX has failed to acknowledge its responsibility as a data furnisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and has repeatedly shifted blame onto the credit bureaus instead of addressing its own reporting errors. \nThis dispute details multiple instances where XXXX misrepresented the role of the credit bureaus and attempted to excuse its own inaccurate reporting by shifting accountability. I am demanding that the CFPB investigate XXXX misleading practices and require them to take full responsibility for the accuracy of the data they furnish. \nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Status Update Discrepancies XXXX stated that my charge-off was reported in XX/XX/XXXX but then admitted that Experian had to \" correct '' this information in XX/XX/XXXX after I disputed it. \nIf their reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, there would be no need for Experian to correct anything in XXXX. \nXXXX attempt to blame the credit bureaus for the correction is misleading because it suggests they furnished inaccurate or incomplete information in the first place. \nThis proves XXXX original reporting was incorrect, and they are trying to shift the blame instead of taking responsibility. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Inconsistent Reporting Across TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian XXXX stated that my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) was never reported to Experian. \nHowever, Experian corrected data in XX/XX/XXXX, meaning that they did have reporting from XXXX at some point. \nThis contradicts XXXX statement and suggests either : o a ) XXXX previously reported and later removed data, or o b ) XXXX record-keeping is inconsistent across different credit bureaus. \nInstead of admitting an error, XXXX falsely claimed Experian was never involved, which is misleading and deceptive. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies XXXX acknowledged that XXXX bureau recorded my last payment on the XXXX while another recorded it on the XXXX. \nThey blamed the credit bureaus processing times for this discrepancy instead of acknowledging that XXXX itself is responsible for ensuring consistent and accurate reporting. \nIf XXXX submits the same data to all bureaus at the same time, there should not be a six-day difference. \nThis is an attempt to mislead consumers into thinking the credit bureaus are at fault, when in reality, XXXX own data submission practices are likely inconsistent. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed the Credit Bureaus for How Closed Accounts Are Displayed XXXX admitted my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) is closed, but also stated that it is still reporting on my credit report. \nIf the account is closed in good standing, it should not negatively impact my credit score. \nInstead of explaining why this is happening, XXXX implied that it is out of their control and blamed the credit bureaus. \nXXXX is responsible for furnishing updated, accurate status information to the bureaus, yet they act as if it is the bureaus fault that closed accounts are reporting incorrectly. \nXXXX Misleading and Inaccurate Reporting Practices failing to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and misleadingly blaming the credit bureaus for its own errors. XXXX actions constitute violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which holds data furnishers responsible for accurate and consistent reporting. \nThe following points provide clear evidence that XXXX is solely responsible for the reporting discrepancies and that its attempts to shift blame to the credit bureaus are misleading and deceptive. \nXXXX Admitted Experian Had to Correct Their Inaccurate Reporting XXXX stated : \" In XX/XX/XXXX, you filed a dispute with Experian, and we responded by correcting disputed information, which is why there is an update showing in XX/XX/XXXX. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, Experian would not have needed to correct it in XX/XX/XXXX. \no Credit bureaus do not change data on their ownthey only update what XXXX submits. \no XXXX original report was clearly inaccurate or incomplete, requiring correction. \nXXXX is at fault for furnishing incorrect data in XXXX, which led to Experians correction in XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Contradicted Itself About Reporting to Experian XXXX claimed : \" This account only reports to TransUnion and Equifax, so it was never removed from your Experian report ; it was never reported to Experian in the first place. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX never reported to XXXX, how did XXXX receive and later correct the disputed account? \no This contradiction suggests XXXX either previously reported and removed the account or failed to furnish consistent data. \no The credit bureaus only display what XXXX provides, so any inconsistencies are due to XXXX reporting failures. \nXXXX misrepresentation of its reporting practices is misleading and deceptive. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Blamed Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies Instead of Taking Responsibility XXXX stated : \" We furnish account information on the first business day of every month, but the credit bureaus may have varying processing times, which is why XXXX bureau is reporting your last payment on the XXXX and another is reporting the last payment on the XXXX. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o If XXXX submits payment data on the same day to all bureaus, the dates should be the same across all reports. \no Processing delays do not explain a six-day difference. \no The only explanation is that XXXX submitted the data inconsistently or late to different bureaus. \nXXXX is misleadingly blaming the bureaus for discrepancies caused by their own inconsistent reporting. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Failed to Properly Update Closed Account Status XXXX admitted : \" While this account is closed, it is still reporting on your credit report as paid and closed. '' Why this proves XXXX is responsible : o When an account is closed, XXXX must furnish an updated status to all bureaus. \no If the account is still affecting my credit negatively, that means XXXX failed to update the status correctly. \no The credit bureaus only reflect the data XXXX submitsthey do not decide how an account is classified. \nXXXX is responsible for updating closed accounts, but instead, they falsely implied that its the credit bureaus fault. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Actions Violate FCRA Data Furnishing Responsibilities Under FCRA 623 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ), XXXX is legally required to : 1. Report accurate and complete information to credit bureaus.\n\n2. Correct any errors in a timely manner.\n\n3. Ensure consistency across all bureaus.\n\n4. Properly update closed accounts.\n\nInstead of following these legal responsibilities, XXXX has : Furnished inaccurate and inconsistent data. \nAdmitted that Experian had to correct their mistakes.\n\nContradicted their own statements about reporting to Experian.\n\nBlamed the credit bureaus for discrepancies that are entirely their fault. \nThese violations of the FCRA warrant immediate regulatory action. \nXXXX  Falsely Claimed They Dont Control How Credit Bureaus Display Data XXXX stated : \" We dont control how the credit bureaus label or display this information. '' Why this is false and misleading : o Credit bureaus do not create or modify account information. They only display what XXXX furnishes. \no XXXX controls the account type, payment history, and status updates when they report to the bureaus. \no If an account is misclassified or inconsistent across bureaus, it means XXXX submitted it that way. \no FCRA 623 requires XXXX to furnish accurate, complete, and consistent datameaning XXXX is legally responsible for any errors. \nThis statement is a direct attempt to avoid responsibility and mislead consumers. \nIf the following accounts are not completely deleted from my credit reports within 30 days, I will : Pursue legal action for statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per FCRA violation per account. \nReport XXXX deceptive practices to state and federal consumer protection agencies. \nFinal Notice Delete These Accounts Immediately XXXX Credit Account ( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Failure to comply with this demand will result in legal escalation, regulatory action, and financial penalties against XXXX. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter before further legal action is taken. I expect written confirmation of account deletions within 30 days.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-31T07:51:19.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20743","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12737491","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-31T07:50:53.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Discrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off <em>Amounts</em> XXXX stated that I had XXXX months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off. \nHowever, they <em>failed</em> to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this <em>amount</em> fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\nXXXX."],"issue":["<em>Improper</em> use of your report"]},"sort":[9.714143,"12737491"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12746266","_score":9.69913,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Final Legal Notice Kikoffs FCRA Violations and Demand for Immediate Deletion of Accounts To : XXXX & Kikoff Customer Support This response is wholly inadequate, dismissive, and riddled with contradictions that demonstrate Kikoff 's clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and failure to maintain accurate records. Instead of properly investigating and addressing my complaints, you have consolidated distinct disputes, attempted to deflect responsibility onto the credit bureaus, and failed to provide any legitimate justification for your erroneous reporting. \nYou have also raised concerns about my filing of three separate complaints, each concerning different Kikoff accounts. These separate complaints are entirely justified, as each account has its own unique violations and reporting discrepancies, which must be investigated independently. Consolidating the complaints would allow you to escape scrutiny and responsibility for each accounts specific issues. Let me be abundantly clear : Kikoffs refusal to correct these violations and delete the inaccurate accounts constitutes willful non-compliance with federal law. \nViolation of FCRA Due to Mishandling of Disputes Your response demonstrates that Kikoff failed to properly handle my disputes by combining all three complaints into one generic response. The lack of individual attention to each account and dispute constitutes a violation of the FCRA, which requires accurate reporting and correct dispute resolution. Kikoffs failure to conduct proper investigations and follow established protocols has led to serious inaccuracies in my credit report, including incorrect dates, payment histories, and status updates.\n\nIf Kikoff had followed the proper protocols in reviewing my disputes, they would have identified significant errors, such as the XX/XX/XXXX error in your internal records. This oversight is evidence of Kikoffs internal failure to maintain accurate data, which is directly in violation of the FCRA. \n\n. Kikoffs Error in Claiming No Cancellation Requests The claim that no cancellation request is on file for my accounts is irrelevant. Kikoff does not have the right to require an official cancellation request if they have not provided adequate notice or clear instructions regarding account cancellation. The failure to allow a proper account cancellation or provide sufficient means to do so is a further violation of my rights.\n\nKikoff Provided an Impossible Account Agreement Date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) In their response, Kikoff stated my account terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, which is an impossible date as we are currently in XXXX. \nThis calls into question the accuracy of their entire record-keeping system, as no legitimate contract can exist with a future date. \nGiven this blatant inaccuracy, I challenge the validity of the agreement they are using to justify negative reporting and demand that all related derogatory information be removed immediately. \n\nMisrepresentation of Credit Reporting Laws Kikoff stated that closed accounts remain on credit reports for seven years.\n\nWhile negative information can stay for seven years, a paid and closed account should not report as delinquent or negatively impact a credit score.\n\nIf my closed accounts are affecting my credit unfairly, I demand their immediate removal or correction. \n\nSelective Reporting to Different Bureaus : Your claim of reporting only to XXXX and XXXX raises serious questions about your compliance with credit reporting laws, especially as it pertains to reporting data consistently across all bureaus. Kikoffs Improper Consolidation of Separate Disputes Your decision to combine three distinct disputes into a single response is both inappropriate and legally unacceptable. Each account has its own reporting errors, inconsistencies, and violations, and treating them as one is a blatant attempt to dismiss the severity of these issues. This approach directly contradicts Kikoffs legal obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of each disputed account under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). \nYou do not get to dictate how I file disputes, nor can you ignore valid claims by lumping them together for convenience. \nDEMAND : Provide proof that each dispute was individually investigated and resolved in compliance with FCRA guidelines. If no such investigation was conducted, then you are in blatant violation of federal law, and I demand the immediate deletion of these accounts from my credit report. \n\nInaccurate and Contradictory Payment Reporting ( FCRA Violations ) Your response fails to address the glaring contradictions in payment reporting across credit bureaus. Your claim that these discrepancies are just minor differences in labeling is false, misleading, and legally irrelevant. \nAccount XXXX Conflicting Payment Histories XXXX : Reports 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, CO, CO ( Charge-Off ) XXXX : Reports 30, 60, 90, 120, CO XXXX XXXX Reports no payment history at all You claim that Kikoff reports the same information to all bureaus, yet you can not explain why the bureaus have completely different delinquency progressions and missing data for the same account. This is not a bureau issueit is a Kikoff issue. \nAccount XXXX Fabricated Late Payments XXXX : Reports \" 90 days past due '' without prior 30 or 60-day delinquency XXXX : Reports Not more than four payments past due but without clear delinquency markers This means Kikoff is reporting inconsistent, fabricated delinquenciesa direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires accurate reporting. \nAccount XXXX Misrepresentation of Status XXXX & XXXX : Report paid as agreed but closedmisleading and contradictory XXXX : Does not show the account at all If the account was closed for non-payment, then it can not simultaneously be reported as paid as agreed. This is a blatant contradiction, further proving Kikoffs failure to ensure reporting accuracy. \nDEMAND : 1. Immediately correct these reporting inconsistencies OR delete the accounts if you can not ensure compliance with FCRA-mandated accuracy requirements.\n\n2. Provide proof of each bureaus response to your data submission, showing that Kikoffs information was accurately furnished.\n\n3. If Kikoff can not explain why the data is inconsistent, then all three accounts must be deleted immediately.\n\nFalse Claim That Kikoff Can not Control How Bureaus Display Information Your response states : We do not control how the bureaus process and display that information. \nThis is false and misleading. While credit bureaus format reports differently, they only display what Kikoff provides. If three bureaus are reporting different delinquency statuses and account details, that is because Kikoff has failed to furnish accurate and consistent datanot because of the bureaus formatting.\n\nThis attempt to shift blame onto the bureaus does not absolve Kikoff of responsibility. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), Kikoff is legally required to ensure all information it furnishes is accurate and consistent.\n\nDEMAND : Provide a legal justification, backed by documentation, proving that the inconsistent reporting is caused by the bureaus and not by Kikoffs data submission failures. Otherwise, these accounts must be deleted immediately.\n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX Date Error Proof of Reckless Record-Keeping Your response states : Terms and conditions were accepted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is an impossible date, proving that Kikoffs internal record-keeping is fundamentally flawed. If Kikoff can not even verify the correct date of account openings, how can you be trusted to report accurate payment histories and delinquencies?\n\nThis is direct evidence of Kikoffs negligence in maintaining consumer records and further justifies the deletion of these accounts under FCRA standards.\n\nDEMAND : Explain how this blatant error occurred and provide assurance that similar mistakes are not affecting my credit report. Otherwise, this serves as additional grounds for immediate account deletion. \n\nFalse Claim That Late Payments Were Accurately Reported Your response attempts to justify reporting months of late payments after the account was closed due to non-payment. However, if the account was charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, there should be no further delinquency reporting beyond that date. \nKikoff is falsely extending the delinquency timeline to make the account appear more damaging than it should be, a deceptive practice that violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nDEMAND : Immediately remove all incorrect late payments that extend beyond the account charge-off date. \n\n\nFailure to Address My Cancellation Request You claim there is no cancellation request on file. However, you fail to provide proof that cancellation options were clearly communicated. If Kikoff has a history of failing to process cancellation requests, this is a violation of consumer rights and deceptive business practices.\n\nDEMAND : Provide documentation proving that cancellation options were clearly available and that my requests were properly processed. If no such proof exists, then Kikoff must delete my accounts immediately.\n\nLack of a Proper Cancellation Process Kikoff claims, \" Customers have the right to cancel at any time without penalty, '' yet also stated that they have no record of my cancellation request. \nThis suggests they do not have a proper cancellation process in place, making it difficult for consumers to stop unwanted reporting. \nI demand that Kikoff provides a clear, documented cancellation process and ensures all closed accounts are properly updated across all credit bureaus.\n\nMisleading Attempt to Blame Credit Bureaus You incorrectly attempt to place blame on the credit bureaus for the discrepancies in my reports. While Kikoff may not control how the bureaus display the information, Kikoff is still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data it furnishes. Shifting blame to the bureaus is misleading and an attempt to deflect Kikoffs failure to uphold its responsibility.\n\nDiscrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off Amounts Kikoff stated that I had six months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off.\n\nHowever, they failed to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this amount fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\n6. Kikoff 's Misleading Explanation About Late Payments Kikoff blamed credit bureau processing times for reporting differences, stating that one bureau showed my last payment on the XXXX, while another reported it on the XXXX. \nWhile minor processing differences are expected, a six-day discrepancy is excessive and suggests Kikoff is not furnishing information consistently.\n\nThis inconsistent reporting can mislead lenders and impact credit decisions, requiring immediate rectification. \n\nKikoffs Misleading Blame on Credit Bureaus for Reporting Inconsistencies ongoing attempts to mislead consumers and deflect responsibility by blaming credit bureaus for their own reporting inconsistencies. Throughout their responses to my dispute, Kikoff has failed to acknowledge its responsibility as a data furnisher under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and has repeatedly shifted blame onto the credit bureaus instead of addressing its own reporting errors. \nThis dispute details multiple instances where Kikoff misrepresented the role of the credit bureaus and attempted to excuse its own inaccurate reporting by shifting accountability. I am demanding that the CFPB investigate Kikoffs misleading practices and require them to take full responsibility for the accuracy of the data they furnish.\n\n1. Kikoff Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Status Update Discrepancies Kikoff stated that my charge-off was reported in XX/XX/XXXX but then admitted that XXXX had to \" correct '' this information in XX/XX/XXXX after I disputed it. \nIf their reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, there would be no need for XXXX to correct anything in XXXX. \nKikoffs attempt to blame the credit bureaus for the correction is misleading because it suggests they furnished inaccurate or incomplete information in the first place. \nThis proves Kikoffs original reporting was incorrect, and they are trying to shift the blame instead of taking responsibility.\n\n2. Kikoff Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Inconsistent Reporting Across XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX Kikoff stated that my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) was never reported to XXXX. \nHowever, XXXX corrected data in XX/XX/XXXX, meaning that they did have reporting from Kikoff at some point. \nThis contradicts Kikoffs statement and suggests either : o a ) Kikoff previously reported and later removed data, or o b ) Kikoffs record-keeping is inconsistent across different credit bureaus. \nInstead of admitting an error, Kikoff falsely claimed XXXX was never involved, which is misleading and deceptive. \n\n3. Kikoff Blamed the Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies Kikoff acknowledged that one bureau recorded my last payment on the XXXX while another recorded it on the XXXX. \nThey blamed the credit bureaus processing times for this discrepancy instead of acknowledging that Kikoff itself is responsible for ensuring consistent and accurate reporting. \nIf Kikoff submits the same data to all bureaus at the same time, there should not be a six-day difference.\n\nThis is an attempt to mislead consumers into thinking the credit bureaus are at fault, when in reality, Kikoffs own data submission practices are likely inconsistent.\n\n4. Kikoff Blamed the Credit Bureaus for How Closed Accounts Are Displayed Kikoff admitted my Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) is closed, but also stated that it is still reporting on my credit report. \nIf the account is closed in good standing, it should not negatively impact my credit score.\n\nInstead of explaining why this is happening, Kikoff implied that it is out of their control and blamed the credit bureaus. \nKikoff is responsible for furnishing updated, accurate status information to the bureaus, yet they act as if it is the bureaus fault that closed accounts are reporting incorrectly.\n\nKikoffs Misleading and Inaccurate Reporting Practices failing to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and misleadingly blaming the credit bureaus for its own errors. Kikoffs actions constitute violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which holds data furnishers responsible for accurate and consistent reporting.\n\nThe following points provide clear evidence that Kikoff is solely responsible for the reporting discrepancies and that its attempts to shift blame to the credit bureaus are misleading and deceptive.\n\nKikoff Admitted XXXX Had to Correct Their Inaccurate Reporting Kikoff stated : \" In XX/XX/XXXX, you filed a dispute with XXXX, and we responded by correcting disputed information, which is why there is an update showing in XX/XX/XXXX. '' Why this proves Kikoff is responsible : o If Kikoffs reporting was accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX would not have needed to correct it in XX/XX/XXXX. \no Credit bureaus do not change data on their ownthey only update what Kikoff submits.\n\no Kikoffs original report was clearly inaccurate or incomplete, requiring correction.\n\nKikoff is at fault for furnishing incorrect data in XXXX, which led to XXXX correction in XXXX. \n\n2. Kikoff Contradicted Itself About Reporting to XXXX Kikoff claimed : \" This account only reports to XXXX and XXXX, so it was never removed from your XXXX report ; it was never reported to XXXX in the first place. '' Why this proves Kikoff is responsible : o If Kikoff never reported to XXXX, how did XXXX receive and later correct the disputed account? \no This contradiction suggests Kikoff either previously reported and removed the account or failed to furnish consistent data. \no The credit bureaus only display what Kikoff provides, so any inconsistencies are due to Kikoffs reporting failures.\n\nKikoffs misrepresentation of its reporting practices is misleading and deceptive.\n\n3. Kikoff Blamed Credit Bureaus for Payment Date Discrepancies Instead of Taking Responsibility Kikoff stated : \" We furnish account information on the first business day of every month, but the credit bureaus may have varying processing times, which is why one bureau is reporting your last payment on the XXXX and another is reporting the last payment on the XXXX. '' Why this proves Kikoff is responsible : o If Kikoff submits payment data on the same day to all bureaus, the dates should be the same across all reports. \no Processing delays do not explain a six-day difference. \no The only explanation is that Kikoff submitted the data inconsistently or late to different bureaus. \nKikoff is misleadingly blaming the bureaus for discrepancies caused by their own inconsistent reporting. \n\n4. Kikoff Failed to Properly Update Closed Account Status Kikoff admitted : \" While this account is closed, it is still reporting on your credit report as paid and closed. '' Why this proves Kikoff is responsible : o When an account is closed, Kikoff must furnish an updated status to all bureaus.\n\no If the account is still affecting my credit negatively, that means Kikoff failed to update the status correctly. \no The credit bureaus only reflect the data Kikoff submitsthey do not decide how an account is classified. \nKikoff is responsible for updating closed accounts, but instead, they falsely implied that its the credit bureaus fault.\n\n5. Kikoffs Actions Violate FCRA Data Furnishing Responsibilities Under FCRA 623 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ), Kikoff is legally required to : 1. Report accurate and complete information to credit bureaus.\n\n2. Correct any errors in a timely manner.\n\n3. Ensure consistency across all bureaus.\n\n4. Properly update closed accounts.\n\nInstead of following these legal responsibilities, Kikoff has : Furnished inaccurate and inconsistent data. \nAdmitted that XXXX had to correct their mistakes. \nContradicted their own statements about reporting to XXXX. \nBlamed the credit bureaus for discrepancies that are entirely their fault. \nThese violations of the FCRA warrant immediate regulatory action. \nKikoff Falsely Claimed They Dont Control How Credit Bureaus Display Data Kikoff stated : \" We dont control how the credit bureaus label or display this information. '' Why this is false and misleading : o Credit bureaus do not create or modify account information. They only display what Kikoff furnishes.\n\no Kikoff controls the account type, payment history, and status updates when they report to the bureaus.\n\no If an account is misclassified or inconsistent across bureaus, it means Kikoff submitted it that way.\n\no FCRA 623 requires Kikoff to furnish accurate, complete, and consistent datameaning Kikoff is legally responsible for any errors.\n\nThis statement is a direct attempt to avoid responsibility and mislead consumers. \nIf the following accounts are not completely deleted from my credit reports within 30 days, I will : Pursue legal action for statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per FCRA violation per account. \nReport Kikoffs deceptive practices to state and federal consumer protection agencies.\n\nFinal Notice Delete These Accounts Immediately Kikoff Credit Account ( XXXX ) Kikoff Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) Kikoff Credit Builder Loan ( XXXX ) Failure to comply with this demand will result in legal escalation, regulatory action, and financial penalties against Kikoff. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter before further legal action is taken. I expect written confirmation of account deletions within 30 days.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-31T08:03:49.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20743","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12746266","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Kikoff Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-31T07:51:46.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Discrepancy in Late Payment Reporting and Charge-Off <em>Amounts</em> Kikoff stated that I had six months of missed {$20.00} payments ( totaling {$120.00} ) before the account was charged off.\n\nHowever, they <em>failed</em> to explain why this balance was still reported past the charge-off date or why this <em>amount</em> fluctuated across bureaus. \nThese discrepancies indicate inconsistent and potentially incorrect reporting, requiring immediate correction. \n\n6."],"issue":["<em>Improper</em> use of your report"]},"sort":[9.69913,"12746266"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14901496","_score":8.621368,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Formal Complaint and Rebuttal Oliphant USA LLC CFPB Case XXXX XXXXXXXX Account : Oliphant USA LLC XXXX XXXX ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal rebuttal to Oliphant USA LLCs response dated XX/XX/XXXX. Oliphant is currently reporting a debt to XXXX and XXXX  that I do not owe and that was previously deleted following a valid FTC Identity Theft Report. Their continued furnishing of this tradeline under a new name and number is unlawful and has caused me significant harm. Below I outline violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), and FDUTPA.\n\n1. FCRA 1681e ( b ) Inaccurate Reporting Without Verification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ), any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency must : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nOliphant failed to meet this requirement. In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they based their reporting on an email address match alone and did not verify critical personal identifiers, including my : Social Security number ( SSN ) Date of birth ( DOB ) Residential address Any signed agreement or contract They also ignored the identity theft documentation I previously submitted, which triggered a heightened legal duty to verify accuracy. \n\nBy reporting this account without confirming these key data points, Oliphant failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the information was accurate and belonged to me. Courts have consistently held that failure to verify personal identifiers especially in cases involving identity theft claims violates 1681e ( b ). This has resulted in real harm to me, including credit damage and emotional distress, and supports deletion of the tradeline and potential civil liability under 1681n ( willful ) and 1681o ( negligent ) violations.\n\n2. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) - ( C ) Improper Reinsertion Without Required Notice or Certification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ), onc\ne a consumer has successfully disputed and removed an account from their credit file, a furnisher or credit reporting agency may not reinsert that information unless they meet strict legal conditions : 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : A deleted item may only be reinserted if the furnisher certifies \nthat the information is complete and accurate.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) : If an item is reinserted, the consumer reporting agency must notify the consumer within five ( 5 ) business days, disclosing the source of the information and informing the consumer of their right to dispute again.\n\nIn this case, I previously submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation, which led to the removal of the original XXXX XXXX tradeline from my credit report. \n\nLater, Oliphant USA LLC re-reported the same debt under : A new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ), A new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and Without disclosing any relationship to the deleted XXXX XXXX account. \n\nThis was a functional reinsertion of the same disputed debt. However, neither Oliphant nor the consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fulfilled the following legal requirements : No certification that the reinserted information was complete and accurate ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ).\n\nNo written notice sent to me within 5 business days of reinsertion ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ). \n\nNo explanation that the new tradeline was connected to the previously deleted account. \n\nThis conduct is deceptive and unlawful. Rebranding the same invalid debt under a new name and account number appears to be an intentional attempt to evade FCRA reinsertion safeguards, effectively re-aging a disputed, time-barred, and fraudulent debt.\n\nBy failing to follow the required reinsertion protocol, Oliphant and the CRAs have violated the FCRA and contributed to contin\nued harm to my credit profile and financial standing. This supports my request for deletion of the account, investigation by the CFPB, and any relief available under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\n3. FCRA 1681b No Permissible Purpose for Reporting or Accessing My Credit File Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681b, a person or entity may only obtain or furnish a consumer report for specific, lawful, and permissible purposes. These purposes include : A credit transaction initiated by the consumer Collection of a legitimate, valid debt Written authorization from the consumer A court order or applicable subpoena Oliphant USA LLC reported a derogatory tradeline to Experian and Equifax without satisfying any of these legal bases. I never initiated a transaction with Oliphant. I have no agreement, contract, or communication with them. I have never authorized them to access, use, or furnish my personal credit information. \n\nMoreover, the alleged debt they are reporting is : Fraudulent, as confirmed by my FTC Identity Theft Report Previously deleted by Experian after my dispute Still unvalidated by Oliphant, who admits they merely \" requested '' validation from the servicer Without a valid and verifiable creditorconsumer relationship, and in the face of unresolved identity theft claims, Oliphant had no permissible purpose under 1681b to furnish or verify this tradeline with any credit reporting agency.\n\nTheir continued credit reporting in this context constitutes a violation of FCRA 1681b ( f ), which states : A person shall not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section. By failing to meet this standard, Oliphant exposed m\ne to : False negative information on my credit report Lower credit scores and financial opportunity losses Emotional and reputational harm This violation supports my request for permanent deletion of the tradeline, regulatory investigation, and damages under FCRA 1681n and 1681o for willful or negligent violations.\n\n4. FDCPA 1692g ( b ) Reporting Without Validation Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( b ), if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days of receiving notice, the debt collector must : Cease all collection activity, including reporting to credit bureaus, Until they have obtained verification of the debt, and Have mailed a copy of such verification to the consumer. \n\nThis is a mandatory requirement. The law does not permit a debt collector to continue attempting to collect directly or indirectly without first validating the debt in response to a written dispute. \n\nIn this case, I filed a formal identity theft dispute and submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation. Despite this, Oliphant continued reporting the account to XXXX and XXXX In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they only requested validation from the servicer ( XXXX XXXX ) and provided no confirmation that the debt had been verified nor did they send me any written validation. \n\nThis continued credit reporting constitutes a form of indirect debt collection. Courts have consistently recognized that furnishing or updating a tradeline with a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) is a collection activity under the FDCPA. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where the court held that such reporting while a dispute is pending and before validation is provided violates 1692g ( b ).\n\nBecause Oliphant : Received a written dispute, Failed to validate the debt in writing, and Continued to report and maintain the tradeline, They have clearly violated FDCPA 1692g ( b ).\n\nThis violation : Justifies permanent deletion of the accoun\nt, Supports regulatory enforcement, and Entitles me to relief under FDCPA 1692k, including : Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ), Actual damages for emotional or financial harm, Attorneys fees and costs, if pursued in court.\n\n5. FDCPA 1692g ( a ) Failure to Send Required I\nnitial Validation Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( a ), a debt collector must provide a written validation notice to the consumer within five ( 5 ) days of their initial communication. This notice must clearly include the following disclosures : The amount of the debt ; The name of the current creditor ; A statement of the consumers right to dispute the debt within 30 days ; A statement that the collector will provide verification or a judgment upon written request ; A statement that the collector will identify the original creditor upon request, if different.\n\nOliphant USA LLC failed to provide me with any such written notice. I was never sent a communicationby mail or otherwisecontaining these disclosures. I only learned of Oliphant 's involvement after discovering their derogatory tradeline on my credit report. \n\nCredit reporting itself is recognized as an initial communication for purposes of FDCPA compliance because it constitutes a collection attempt through reputational damage. Therefore, Oliphant had a legal obligation to send me a 1692g ( a ) notice within five days of reporting the debt to the CRAs. They did not.\n\nThis omission violated one of the most fundamental protections in the FDCPA. Without this notice : I was not informed of my dispute rights ; I had no idea who the alleged creditor was or what amount they claimed ; I was deprived of my right to request validation or the name of the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ). \n\nThis violation is not merely proceduralit caused real harm by allowing Oliphant to furnish negative credit data while withholding my statutory right to contest the debt.\n\nThis violation of 1692g ( a ) supports : My request for deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement by the CFPB, and My right to seek damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory damages, actual harm, and attorneys fees if pursued in court.\n\n6. FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) Misrepresenting the Character, Amount, or Legal Status of the Debt Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) prohibits a debt collector from falsely representing : The character of a debt, The amount of a debt, or The legal status of a debt.\n\nOliphant USA LLC has violated this provision by including court fees in the reported balance of a debt that h\nas never been the subject of a legal action or court judgment.\n\nTo my knowledge : I have never been sued by Oliphant USA LLC or XXXX XXXX XXXX have never received service of process, been summoned, or appeared in court regarding this matter, No judgment has been issued against me in connection with this alleged debt.\n\nDespite this, Oliphant reported an inflated balance that exceeds the original charge-off amount including what they identify as court fees. This falsely suggests that : A court has entered a judgment against me, The debt has been legally adjudicated, and The amount owed includes legally imposed costs.\n\nThis is a misrepresentation of both the amount and legal status of the debt under 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\nCourts have consistently held that the inclusion of court costs or legal fees without an actual lawsuit or judgment is a deceptive and unlawful practice under the FDCPA. In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, the court ruled that representing attorneys fees or legal charges as part of a consumer debt without proper explanation or legal authority violated 1692e.\n\nHere, Oliphant : Failed to provide any legal justification or supporting contract showing their right to collect court fees, Offered no proof of legal proceedings to justify such charges, and Furnished this misleading information to credit reporting agencies, where it remains visible to lenders and the public. \n\nThis creates a false sense of legal finality and urgency, and damages my reputation and creditworthiness based on claims that are legally unfounded.\n\nThis violation of 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) supports my request for : Permanent deletion of the tradeline, Regulatory enforcement action, and Statutory and actual damages under FDCPA 1692k.\n\n7. FDCPA 1692f ( 1 ) Collection of Unauthorized A\nmounts Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692f ( 1 ), a debt collector may not attempt to collect : Any amount ( including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation ) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\nIn this case, Oliphant USA LLC has added court fees to the balance of the alleged debt that they are reporting to XXXX and XXXX  However : I have never been served with a lawsuit, I have never appeared in court, No judgment has been entered against me, and Oliphant has never provided a copy of any contract or agreement authorizing court-related charges.\n\nWithout a court order or contractual basis, the inclusion of court fees is unlawful. These charges are neither authorized by the original XXXX XXXX agreement nor awarded by any legal proceeding. \n\nCourts have routinely found that the attempt to collect fees not authorized by a contract or permitted by law is a strict violation of 1692f ( 1 ). For example, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, even the attempt to collect small unauthorized fees was found actionable. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute intent is not required. If an unauthorized amount is sought, a violation exists.\n\nBy inflating the balance of the alleged debt in this way, Oliphant is attempting to collect an amount that exceeds any legal or contractual authority. This conduct : Misleads CRAs and potential lenders, Exposes me to false financial liability, and Directly violates federal law. \n\nThis supports my demand for : Permanent deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement under the FDCPA, and Damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory and actual damages.\n\n8. FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) Attempting to Enforce a Time-Barred Debt Under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) 559.72 ( 9 ), it is unlawful for a debt collector to : Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.\n\nIn this case, Oliphant USA LLC is attempting to collect and report a debt that is clearly time-barred under Florida Statutes 95.11 ( 2 ) ( b ), which sets a 5-year statute of limitations for actions based on written contracts. \n\nBased on my records and available credit history : The original XXXX XXXX account was charged off in XXXX or earlier, and No payments or acknowledgments have been made since that time to revive the debt, The tradeline appears to have been reinserted under Oliphants name after the statute of limitations had already expired.\n\nDespite the debt being legally unenforceable, Oliphant continues to : Report it to XXXX and XXXX Represent the amount as current and collectible, and Omit any disclosure that the debt is beyond Floridas statutory limitations period. \n\nThis is a clear attempt to enforce rights that no longer legally exist a direct violation of 559.72 ( 9 ).\n\nCourts interpreting this section of the FCCPA have consistently ruled that : Collectors must not misrepresent or attempt to enforce time-barred debts, Failing to disclose that a debt is unenforceable can itself be deceptive, Credit reporting is considered a form of collection activity.\n\nBy engaging in this conduct, Oliphant is misleading me, CRAs, and potential creditors into believing the debt is valid, recent, and legally enforceable when it is not. This deception has caused me real financial and reputational harm. \n\nAs such, I request : Immediate deletion of this tradeline from all CRAs, Investigation and enforcement by the CFPB and Florida Attorney General, and Relief under FCCPA 559.77, including damages, costs, and attorneys fees.\n\npayment history : 9. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) Missing or Misstated DOFD and Payment History ( Re-Aging Violation ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), furnishers are strictly required to report the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date accurately. These fields are essential for determining the reporting period of a negative account. Specifically : 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) prohibits reporting collection accounts more than seven years plus 180 days from the DOFD.\n\n1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) similarly restricts charged-off account reporting after that period. \n\nIn my case, the original XXXX XXXX account was charged off prior to XXXX, and the debt should therefore be nearing or already beyond the statutory reporting limit. However, Oliphant USA LLC : Reported an inaccurate open date of XX/XX/XXXX, Omitted or misstated the DOFD, Failed to include the last payment date, and Provided no documentation or XXXX XXXX-compliant data to support the legitimacy or age of the tradeline. \n\nThese omissions and alterations effectively re-age the account, making it appear newer and more damaging to my credit than it actually is. This tactic is illegal under the FCRA and has been the subject of multiple enforcement actions by the CFPB and FTC. \n\nFurnishers are also required to comply with XXXX XXXX credit reporting standards, which mandate proper furnishing of : Field XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment History Profile Field XXXX Account Status Field XXXX Special Comment Codes, including dispute, fraud, or identity theft flags ( e.g., XB, XH ) Oliphants failure to report these fields and their misrepresentation of the accounts age has likely caused my credit score to be lower than it would be with accurate reporting. Worse, it allows a time-barred and previously deleted debt to stay on my file longer than the law allows.\n\nThis conduct : Violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ), Circumvents the statute of limitations on credit reporting, Undermines the integrity of the credit system, and Constitutes an additional basis for deletion, regulatory enforcement, and damages. \nI request the CFPB investigate whether Oliphant improperly re-aged this account and failed to furnish the required DOFD and payment history fields in accordance with both FCRA and XXXX XXXX standards. \n10. XXXX XXXX and FCRA Violations Rebranding and Concealing a Previously Deleted Debt Oliphant USA LLC is furnishing data to Experian and Equifax regarding the same underlying account that was previously reported and deleted by XXXX XXXX. However, rather than identifying the debt properly, Oliphant has : Reported the debt under a new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ) and a new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), Failed to include any reference to the original creditor, Reported a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, which is disconnected from the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), Omitted required XXXX XXXX fields, including : Field XXXX XXXX, Field XXXX Payment History Profile, Field XXXX Accurate Account Status, and Field XXXX Dispute/Fraud Coding ( e.g., XB or XH ) These omissions and misrepresentations violate XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : FCRA 1681e ( b ) failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to correct or update inaccurate information after receiving notice of dispute, FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) potential re-aging of obsolete information This conduct conceals the history of identity theft and prior deletion of the account and gives the misleading appearance that a new, legitimate account exists, when in fact it is the same previously removed debt rebranded, reinserted, and re-aged. \n\nThese tactics mislead credit reporting agencies, lenders, and other users of my credit file. I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate whether Oliphants reporting practices conform to XXXX XXXX standards and whether they violated their legal obligations under the FCRA by failing to furnish complete, accurate, and non-misleading data.\n\n11. FDCPA 1692c ( c ) Cease and Desist Notice and Enforcement This letter constitutes formal written notice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1692c ( c ) that I refuse to pay the disputed debt and demand that Oliphant USA LLC immediately cease all further communication with me regarding this matter.\n\nPursuant to 1692c ( c ), once a consumer notifie\ns a debt collector in writing to cease communication, the collector may only contact the consumer : To confirm that further collection efforts will stop, or To inform the consumer of specific legal remedies that may be pursued Any further attempts to collect this alleged debt including but not limited to letters, calls, emails, or continued credit reporting will constitute a separate and actionable violation of the FDCPA. \n\nI dispute the validity and ownership of this debt in full. I have submitted an FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. I have no relationship with Oliphant, and I have received no proper validation. I will not engage in further communication unless required to defend myself in a legal forum.\n\nI am formally requesting that Oliphant : Cease all direct or indirect collection activities, including credit rep\norting, Mark the account as disputed and blocked due to identity theft, and Refrain from selling, transferring, or assigning the account to any third party Any failure to comply with this cease and desist notice will be considered willful noncompliance under the FDCPA and may give rise to further regulatory complaint and/or civil action.\n\n12. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & 1681s-2 ( b ) CRA and Furnisher Reinvestigation Failures Under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), both consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) and furnishers of information have strict reinvestigation obligations when a consumer submits a dispute. \n\nWhen I disputed this account with XXXX  and XXXX  I included : A valid FTC Identity Theft Report, Written details outlining the fraudulent nature of the debt, and Evidence that the original tradeline had previously been removed from my credit file If Oliphant USA LLC responded to the CRA dispute by confirming the account without : Conducting a meaningful investigation, Reviewing the identity theft documentation I submitted, or Verifying the accuracy of fields such as XXXX, last payment, and original creditor information, then they violated FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nLikewise, if the CRAs failed to delete or correct unverifiable data within the 30-day period, they violated FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\nBoth the CRA and the furnisher are obligated to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, Review all relevant evidence submitted by the consumer, and Update or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable data A mere check-the-box confirmation without substantive review is legally insufficient. This failure has allowed false information to remain on my report, contributing to : Lower credit scores, Reputational harm, Credit denials, and Ongoing emotional distress These failures support my request for deletion of the tradeline, enforcement action by the CFPB, and relief under FCRA 1681n and 1681o. \n13. FDUTPA 501.204 Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Oliphant USA LLCs actions constitute clear violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204, which prohibits any unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.\n\nSpecifically, Oliphant engaged in the following deceptive and unfair practices : Rebranding a previously deleted account ( originally from XXXX XXXX ) and furnishing it under a new tradename and number, without disclosing its origin, deletion history, or disputed status. \n\nAssigning a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, while omitting the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date creating the false appearance of recency. \n\nAdding court fees to the balance despite there being no legal judgment, court action, or supporting contract. \n\nReporting a time-barred debt as if it were legally enforceable, without notifying me or the CRAs that the debt is beyond Floridas 5-year statute of limitations. \n\nFailing to apply the appropriate XXXX XXXX dispute and identity theft codes, such as XXXX or XXXX, misleading the credit bureaus into believing the account is undisputed and valid. \n\nContinuing to report and collect on this account without providing written validation or responding to identity theft documentation despite their obligations under both federal and Florida law. \n\nUnder FDUTPA : It is not necessary to prove intent only that the practice was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. \n\nThese acts and omissions were material, misleading, and harmful to me as a Florida consumer. \n\nFDUTPA covers any commercial conduct including debt collection and credit reporting that causes injury through deceptive methods. \n\nAs a result of these practices, I have suffered : Damage to my creditworthiness, Denial of financial opportunities, Emotional distress and reputational harm, and The cost of ongoing efforts to correct a re-aged, unlawful, and invalid tradeline. \n\nThis pattern of concealment, unauthorized charges, and failure to disclose essential account information is not merely technical it is deceptive and unlawful under Florida law. I respectfully request that the CFPB refer this matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to hold Oliphant accountable under FDUTPA.\n\n14. Pattern of Abusive and Systemic Noncompliance The conduct exhibited by Oliphant USA LLC in my case is not an isolated event, but part of a well-documented pattern of abusive and unlawful practices affecting consumers nationwide. Numerous public complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and consumer rights organizations reveal systemic violations that mirror my own experience.\n\nConsumers consistently report that Oliphant : Attempts to collect debts that are not owed Re-ages or rebrands previously disputed or deleted accounts Continues reporting tradelines without proper validation Adds unauthorized fees to balances Fails to respond to identity theft disputes Harasses consumers despite cease and desist notices Examples of Public Consumer Complaints : Oliphant Financial , LLC is aggressively attempting to collect an alleged debt of {$5500.00} from me. I have sent a formal dispute letter via certified mail demanding full validation of this debt, as is my right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite my dispute, their collection efforts constitute harassment. \nXXXX  Complaint ( bbb.org ) They are trying to collect on a debt that is over 10 years old and already settled. I never received any notice, and they just reported it to the credit bureau as if it were new. \nPublic Complaint Summary ( thelangelfirm.com ) I disputed the debt with Oliphant and they never responded, yet they continue to update the tradeline monthly, lowering my credit score. I provided identity theft documentation and still no response.\n\nPublic Legal Forum Report ( consumerlawfirmcenter.com ) Oliphant is using zombie debt collection practices. They placed a tradeline on my credit report for a debt I never heard of and never validated. This company is guilty of violating consumer notification before striking my credit.\n\nCFPB Public Complaint This pattern reveals a recurring\nfailure to comply with : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681c FDCPA 1692g ( a ) - ( b ), 1692e, 1692f, 1692c ( c ) FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) FDUTPA 501.204 These repeated practices are not simple errors they reflect a business model that profits from the unlawful suppression of consumer rights and regulatory evasion. They demonstrate reckless or willful noncompliance, elevating the seriousness of Oliphants legal exposure under both federal and Florida law.\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB : Recognize these acts as part of a larger pattern of abuse Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office for further enforcement under FDUTPA Impose corrective measures, civil penalties, and require permanent deletion of the unlawful tradeline 15. Potential Improper Disclosure of Personal Identifying Information It appears that XXXX XXXX may have improperly disclosed my sensitive personal identifying information ( PII ) including my Social Security number, date of birth, address, and contact information to Oliphant USA LLC after I had submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and formally disputed the debt as fraudulent. \n\nIn Oliphants JXX/XX/XXXX response, they stated that XXXX XXXX declined the fraud claim due to an email match. However, Oliphant also admitted they had no signed contract, no account records, and no verified identity match. This strongly suggests that my full identity information was shared without my consent and without a permissible legal basis. \n\nThis raises potential violations of the following laws : FCRA 1681b ( f ) Use of consumer information without a valid, permissible purpose Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Unauthorized sharing of non-public personal information ( NPI ) between a financial institution and a non-affiliated third party If XXXX XXXX  shared my identity data with a third-party debt buyer after the account had been disputed, deleted, and identified as fraudulent, such sharing may constitute a breach of consumer privacy and data protection laws. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate whether XXXX XXXX or Oliphant violated federal privacy protections by disclosing or using my personal information after the debt had been flagged as fraudulent. Any findings should be referred to the FTC, appropriate privacy regulators, and state-level data protection authorities as warranted. \nPersonal Impact and Harm Statement In summary, the actions of Oliphant USA LLC have caused me serious and measurable harm. They have reported a debt I do not owe one that was previously removed from my credit reports after I submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. They failed to provide validation, misrepresented the nature and age of the debt, added unauthorized fees, and reinserted the tradeline under a new account number without proper notice. These actions violate multiple provisions of the FCRA, FDCPA, FCCPA, and FDUTPA, as well as XXXX XXXX industry standards. \n\nBecause of Oliphants conduct, I have experienced : Significant and unjustified damage to my credit score Denial of credit and increased borrowing costs Emotional stress and frustration from repeatedly disputing a matter that had already been resolved A loss of confidence in the integrity of the credit reporting system The unauthorized use and possible disclosure of my personal information I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take immediate action to : Require the permanent deletion of this account from all consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) Investigate and sanction Oliphant USA LLC for repeated and systemic violations of consumer protection laws Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney General for FDUTPA and FCCPA enforcement Require all data furnishers involved to comply with FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX guidelines I reserve the ri","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-26T08:37:47.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"32824","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14901496","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Oliphant United, Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-26T06:46:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite this, Oliphant reported an inflated balance that exceeds the original charge-off <em>amount</em> including <em>what</em> they identify as court fees. This falsely suggests that : A court has entered a judgment against me, The debt has been legally adjudicated, and The <em>amount</em> owed includes legally imposed costs.\n\nThis is a misrepresentation of both the <em>amount</em> and legal status of the debt under 1692e ( 2 ) ( A )."]},"sort":[8.621368,"14901496"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13985357","_score":7.794241,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute of unverified utility debt on credit report To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint about a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, appearing on my XXXX  and Experian credit reports. The account number is listed as XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( masked ) and the original creditor is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which is an electricity provider. XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting that I owe a balance of {$440.00} on a debt that was opened/placed for collection around XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute owing this debt, and I assert that XXXX reporting and collection actions are violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). I request the CFPBs assistance in investigating this matter and facilitating the removal of this collection from my credit reports. First, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided any validation or proof that I owe this debt, despite my efforts to obtain such proof. In XX/XX/XXXX, after seeing XXXX appear on my XXXX  report, I sent a debt validation request to XXXX Funding ( and their managing agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX ). In my letter, I stated that I did not recognize the debt and asked for validation per FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692g specifically, I requested documentation such as the final bill from XXXX XXXX, evidence that the account is mine, and a breakdown of the {$440.00}. XXXX XXXX did not mail me any verification documents in response. To date, I have never seen a single piece of evidence that I incurred a {$440.00} debt with XXXX XXXX. I am extremely concerned that this could be a case of mistaken identity or a billing error ( for example, a utility bill from an address I moved out of, where the final bill wasnt forwarded ). Regardless, XXXX  duty under the FDCPA was clear : upon my written dispute, they must cease collection and verify the debt before continuing XXXX Instead, XXXX persisted in reporting the debt to credit bureaus each month, as if it were valid and undisputed. This is an illegal collection practice. Reporting a debt to credit bureaus without validating it when asked is effectively continuing collection activity, which the FDCPA forbids under these circumstances. Second, XXXX XXXX credit reporting on this account is misleading and may involve impermissible re-aging of the debts delinquency date. The original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ) likely stopped providing service and billed the account around XXXX ( if this debt is what I suspect an old utilities account from a previous residence ). A utility debt from XXXX normally would fall off my credit report by late XXXX at the latest ( XXXX  years from the first missed payment ). However, XXXX XXXX is reporting the account with a Date Opened of XX/XX/XXXX and an Estimated removal date of XXXX/XXXX on TransUnion. This implies that XXXX is treating XXXX as the relevant start date, which in effect re-ages the debt on my credit report to make it appear newer than it truly is. Re-aging a delinquent account is illegal under the FCRA solosuit.com solosuit.com. A debt collector can not change or misreport the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). They are required to report the original delinquency month/year so that the XXXX clock for reporting runs from that time. I have strong reason to believe the DOFD for the XXXX XXXX account was in XXXX ( when I closed my service and did not pay the final bill ). If XXXX is instead reporting as if the delinquency began in XXXX ( when they bought the debt ), that is a serious FCRA violation. It keeps an outdated account on my report well past the legal limit files.consumerfinance.gov. This debt, being a utility bill, has no court judgment or other exemption that would allow more than 7 years of reporting. Thus, the entry should be removed by XXXX if XXXX was XXXX. XXXX  data makes it look like it will stay until XXXX, which is absolutely unacceptable and unlawful. This kind of practice resetting the clock on an old debt is a blatant violation of FCRA and an unfair attempt to pressure me to pay a time-barred debt. It also violates FDCPA provisions against false representations : misrepresenting the legal status and age of the debt ( FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ) is prohibited ftc.gov. Third, XXXX XXXX XXXX did not properly notify me about this debt before placing it on my credit report, which is against the CFPBs rules for debt collection. I discovered this collection by checking my credit XXXX never contacted me in writing or by phone prior to reporting. Under the CFPBs Regulation F, a debt collector must attempt to communicate about the debt ( for example, send a letter and wait 14 days to see if its undeliverable ) before furnishing information to a credit reporting agency consumerfinance.gov. I received no such communication at my current address until after I saw the credit report entry. It was only after I disputed with them that they sent a generic we have acquired a debt notice, which was already after they had tarnished my credit. This sequence of events suggests XXXX rushed to credit reporting without ensuring I was aware of the debt or given a chance to pay or dispute it, contravening the intended consumer protections. Such practice is often termed passive collection and is something the CFPB explicitly sought to prevent in its rules. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that I do not recognize, have not been properly notified about, and which they have not verified or reported accurately. They appear to be keeping an old, potentially time-barred utility debt alive on my credit report through improper means. This is causing significant damage to my credit score and reputation, and it is especially frustrating because I can not get XXXX to show any proof that this debt is even mine. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to immediately delete the Account XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) from all of my credit reports ( Experian, XXXX XXXX ). Given XXXX  clear failure to validate the debt when asked, and the evidence of re-aging, deletion is the only appropriate remedy. This item is not verified and not being reported within the bounds of the law. I also request that the CFPB take note of XXXX  practices here if they are doing this to me, they may be doing it to others, and enforcement action may be warranted to stop the re-aging of accounts and credit reporting without proper validation. Lastly, if there is indeed a legitimate utility bill behind this, I am more than willing to address it with the original provider directly. But dealing with XXXX has proven impossible ; they have not followed the rules, so I respectfully ask the Bureau to assist in removing this unjust collection entry from my credit history. Thank you for your attention to this complaint. I trust that the CFPBs involvement will help resolve this matter in accordance with the law and fairness. Sincerely, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute of inaccurate auto loan charge-off on credit report To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding an auto loan account with XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) that is being reported negatively on my credit reports. The account number is XXXX ( masked for privacy ). I obtained this auto loan through XXXX in XXXX to finance a used vehicle. The loan was for approximately {$15000.00} over a XXXX term. Unfortunately, I encountered financial difficulties and the vehicle was repossessed by XXXX in XXXX after I fell behind on payments. XXXX XXXX subsequently charged off the remaining balance ( the deficiency balance after auctioning the vehicle ) in or around XXXX. As of my credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX is still reporting this account as a charge-off with a balance of about {$9200.00}. I firmly believe that XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) due to it being outdated, re-aged, and inaccurate, and I am asking for the CFPBs assistance to correct these issues. First, this XXXX auto loan account appears to be past the allowable credit reporting period, yet it remains on my credit file a direct violation of FCRAs obsolescence provisions. The vehicle was repossessed and the loan defaulted in XXXX ( the date of first delinquency was around XX/XX/XXXX ). Under the FCRA, negative credit information ( such as charge-offs ) may not be reported more than 7 years from the date of first delinquency files.consumerfinance.gov. Given a XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX mark will be XX/XX/XXXX ( at most, XXXX years if we consider the charge-off occurred a few months later, that would be late XXXX ). We are now in XXXX, and this account should have been removed from my credit reports already. The fact that its still showing up indicates that XXXX failed to instruct the credit bureaus to remove it on time, or they misreported the delinquency dates to make it linger. This is wholly unacceptable and illegal under FCRA. I suspect XXXX might have been updating the account in a way that re-aged it for example, by continuing to report monthly or by listing a later last activity date when they sold the deficiency to a collection agency. If they updated the status beyond the actual charge-off date, they effectively changed the clock, which is not allowed solosuit.com. Re-aging a debts date of first delinquency is a serious FCRA violation solosuit.com, and I am concerned XXXX has done this to keep this derogatory on my report past its proper purge date. Second, the balance and information XXXX is reporting are inaccurate and incomplete, especially considering the repossession. After XXXX repossessed the car, it was sold at auction. By law and standard practice, the sale proceeds should have been applied to the balance I owed, leaving a deficiency balance. However, my credit report shows XXXX reporting a balance of {$9200.00} as charged off. I have never received a clear explanation from XXXX of how that figure was calculated. Its quite possible that XXXX failed to credit the auction sale amount properly or added unwarranted fees to the deficiency. If so, the reported balance is inflated and incorrect. I have disputed this with XXXX ( most recently in XX/XX/XXXX via a written dispute letter ), asking for a breakdown of the deficiency balance. XXXX did not provide any itemization or documentation in return ; they merely replied that the debt was charged off and remains due. This lack of transparency is problematic. Reporting a balance without substantiating how it was derived especially when a collateral was taken and sold is an example of incomplete and potentially inaccurate reporting. Under the FCRA, information that is inaccurate or incomplete must be corrected or deleted files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX figure is unverified and possibly wrong. Additionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly note that the vehicle was repossessed ( it might be coded in the comments, but not in plain language ). It also doesnt show a {$0.00} balance with a transfer if they sold the remaining debt to a collection agency. As of now, I dont see a separate collection agency on my report for this, but I want to ensure XXXX XXXX double-listed it ( once as XXXX, once XXXX some debt buyer fortunately, I only see XXXX entry ). However, XXXX own entry is problematic enough. Third, XXXX XXXX has essentially stopped any direct communication with me since the charge-off, yet this old account continues to wreck my credit. I was not even aware it was still on my credit report until I reviewed it recently, because XXXX hasnt contacted me about it in years. This feels like a set it and forget it approach : they wrote it off, perhaps sold the paper to someone else, and left the negative mark to sit indefinitely. This account is so old that it no longer reflects my current creditworthiness or financial behavior. Keeping it on my report past the legal timeframe is punitive and serves no purpose for current credit evaluation. I have rehabilitated many aspects of my finances since XXXX, and it is disheartening that an obsolete entry like this remains solely due to XXXX improper reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX is reporting an auto loan charge-off that is beyond the XXXX reporting period, likely due to re-aging, and the details of the tradeline ( balance, status ) are inaccurate or unverified. This is a clear breach of the Fair Credit Reporting Acts standards, and its causing me undue harm. Requested Resolution : I am requesting that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX to immediately delete the auto loan account ( Acct XXXX XXXX  ) from all of my credit bureau reports. By law, this negative account should no longer even be on the reports at this date. The fact that it is indicates non-compliance that deletion will remedy. Additionally, I ask that CFPB ensure XXXX corrects any issues in how it reports dates of delinquency to prevent re-aging. If XXXX sold the remaining debt to a collection agency, they should have updated the balance to {$0.00} and marked it as transferred ; since they didnt, they either still own it ( and thus are failing to collect or update properly ) or they simply reported incorrectly. Either scenario again points to removal as the appropriate outcome. Finally, I request that any inaccurate balance or amount XXXX reported be addressed if they can not document the legitimacy of the {$9200.00} figure, thats further justification that the entry is unreliable and must be purged. In short, I want this XXXX XXXX charge-off removed permanently from my credit history. Its an old, resolved matter ( the car was taken debt effectively settled via collateral and whatever remained should have been handled years ago ). \n\nExperian is also reporting the last four of my social incorrectly, how do I know this report is to be on my report, if my personal information is wrong.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T05:05:19.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13985357","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-10T03:00:10.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Finally, I request that any inaccurate balance or <em>amount</em> XXXX reported be addressed if they can not <em>document</em> the legitimacy of the {$9200.00} figure, thats further <em>justification</em> that the entry is unreliable and must be purged. In short, I want this XXXX XXXX charge-off removed permanently from my credit history. Its an old, resolved matter ( the car was taken debt effectively settled via collateral and whatever remained should have been handled years ago )."]},"sort":[7.794241,"13985357"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14004874","_score":7.7898903,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX * *, Original Creditor : Just XXXX Texas XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXX * * ) * * Dispute of unverified utility debt on credit report To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint about a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, appearing on my TransUnion and XXXX credit reports. The account number is listed as XXXX * * ( masked ) and the original creditor is XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX, which is an electricity provider. XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting that I owe a balance of {$440.00} on a debt that was opened/placed for collection around XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute owing this debt, and I assert that XXXX reporting and collection actions are violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). I request the CFPBs assistance in investigating this matter and facilitating the removal of this collection from my credit reports. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided any validation or proof that I owe this debt, despite my efforts to obtain such proof. In XX/XX/XXXX, after seeing XXXX appear on my TransUnion report, I sent a debt validation request to XXXX Funding ( and their managing agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX ). In my letter, I stated that I did not recognize the debt and asked for validation per FDCPA XXXX XXXX. XXXX specifically, I requested documentation such as the final bill from XXXX XXXX, evidence that the account is mine, and a breakdown of the {$440.00}. XXXX XXXX did not mail me any verification documents in response. To date, I have never seen a single piece of evidence that I incurred a {$440.00} debt with XXXX XXXX. I am extremely concerned that this could be a case of mistaken identity or a billing error ( for example, a utility bill from an address I moved out of, where the final bill wasnt forwarded ). Regardless, XXXXXXXX  duty under the FDCPA was clear : upon my written dispute, they must cease collection and verify the debt before continuing ftc.gov. Instead, XXXX persisted in reporting the debt to credit bureaus each month, as if it were valid and undisputed. This is an illegal collection practice. Reporting a debt to credit bureaus without validating it when asked is effectively continuing collection activity, which the FDCPA forbids under these circumstances. XXXX, XXXX XXXX credit reporting on this account is misleading and may involve impermissible re-aging of the debts delinquency date. The original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ) likely stopped providing service and billed the account around mid-XXXX ( if this debt is what I suspect an old utilities account from a previous residence ). A utility debt from XXXX normally would fall off my credit report by late XXXX at the latest ( XXXX years from the first missed payment ). However, XXXX XXXX is reporting the account with a Date Opened of XX/XX/XXXX and an Estimated removal date of XXXX/XXXX on TransUnion. This implies that XXXX is treating XXXX as the relevant start date, which in effect re-ages the debt on my credit report to make it appear newer than it truly is. Re-aging a delinquent account is illegal under the FCRA solosuit.com solosuit.com. A debt collector can not change or misreport the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). They are required to report the original delinquency month/year so that the XXXX clock for reporting runs from that time. I have strong reason to believe the XXXX for the XXXX XXXX account was in XXXX ( when I closed my service and did not pay the final bill ). If XXXX is instead reporting as if the delinquency began in XXXX ( when they bought the debt ), that is a serious FCRA violation. It keeps an outdated account on my report well past the legal limit files.consumerfinance.gov. This debt, being a utility bill, has no court judgment or other exemption that would allow more than XXXX years of reporting. Thus, the entry should be removed by XXXX if XXXX was XXXX. XXXX data makes it look like it will stay until XXXX, which is absolutely unacceptable and unlawful. This kind of practice resetting the clock on an old debt is a blatant violation of FCRA and an unfair attempt to pressure me to pay a time-barred debt. It also violates FDCPA provisions against false representations : misrepresenting the legal status and age of the debt ( FDCPA XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( A ) ) is prohibited ftc.gov. Third, XXXX XXXX XXXX did not properly notify me about this debt before placing it on my credit report, which is against the CFPBs rules for debt collection. I discovered this collection by checking my credit XXXX never contacted me in writing or by phone prior to reporting. Under the CFPBs Regulation F, a debt collector must attempt to communicate about the debt ( for example, send a letter and wait XXXX days to see if its undeliverable ) before furnishing information to a credit reporting agency consumerfinance.gov. I received no such communication at my current address until after I saw the credit report entry. It was only after I disputed with them that they sent a generic we have acquired a debt notice, which was already after they had tarnished my credit. This sequence of events suggests XXXX rushed to credit reporting without ensuring I was aware of the debt or given a chance to pay or dispute it, contravening the intended consumer protections. Such practice is often termed passive collection and is something the CFPB explicitly sought to prevent in its rules. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that I do not recognize, have not been properly notified about, and which they have not verified or reported accurately. They appear to be keeping an old, potentially time-barred utility debt alive on my credit report through improper means. This is causing significant damage to my credit score and reputation, and it is especially frustrating because I can not get XXXX to show any proof that this debt is even mine. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to immediately delete the Account # XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX Texas XXXX ) from all of my credit reports ( Experian, Equifax, TransUnion ). Given XXXX clear failure to validate the debt when asked, and the evidence of re-aging, deletion is the only appropriate remedy. This item is not verified and not being reported within the bounds of the law. I also request that the CFPB take note of XXXX practices here if they are doing this to me, they may be doing it to others, and enforcement action may be warranted to stop the re-aging of accounts and credit reporting without proper validation. Lastly, if there is indeed a legitimate utility bill behind this, I am more than willing to address it with the original provider directly. But dealing with XXXX has proven impossible ; they have not followed the rules, so I respectfully ask the Bureau to assist in removing this unjust collection entry from my credit history. Thank you for your attention to this complaint. I trust that the CFPBs involvement will help resolve this matter in accordance with the law and fairness. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXXX, Auto Loan Charge-Off ) Re : XXXX XXXX auto loan ( Acct # XXXXXXXXX ) Dispute of inaccurate auto loan charge-off on credit report To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding an auto loan account with XXXX XXXX ( also known as XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported negatively on my credit reports. The account number is XXXX ( masked for privacy ). I obtained this auto loan through XXXX in XXXX to finance a used vehicle. The loan was for approximately {$15000.00} over a XXXX term. Unfortunately, I encountered financial difficulties and the vehicle was repossessed by XXXX in XXXX after I fell behind on payments. XXXX XXXX subsequently charged off the remaining balance ( the deficiency balance after auctioning the vehicle ) in or around XXXX. As of my credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX is still reporting this account as a charge-off with a balance of about {$9200.00}. I firmly believe that XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) due to it being outdated, re-aged, and inaccurate, and I am asking for the CFPBs assistance to correct these issues. XXXX, this XXXX auto loan account appears to be past the allowable credit reporting period, yet it remains on my credit file a direct violation of FCRAs obsolescence provisions. The vehicle was repossessed and the loan defaulted in midXXXX ( the date of first delinquency was around XX/XX/XXXX ). Under the FCRA, negative credit information ( such as charge-offs ) may not be reported more than XXXX  years from the date of first delinquency files.consumerfinance.gov. Given a XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX mark will be XX/XX/XXXX ( at most, XXXX years if we consider the charge-off occurred a few months later, that would be late XXXX ). We are now in mid-XXXX and this account should have been removed from my credit reports already. The fact that its still showing up indicates that XXXX failed to instruct the credit bureaus to remove it on time, or they misreported the delinquency dates to make it linger. This is wholly unacceptable and illegal under FCRA. I suspect XXXX might have been updating the account in a way that re-aged it for example, by continuing to report monthly or by listing a later last activity date when they sold the deficiency to a collection agency. If they updated the status beyond the actual charge-off date, they effectively changed the clock, which is not allowed solosuit.com. Re-aging a debts date of first delinquency is a serious FCRA violation solosuit.com, and I am concerned XXXX has done this to keep this derogatory on my report past its proper purge date. Second, the balance and information XXXX is reporting are inaccurate and incomplete, especially considering the repossession. After XXXX repossessed the car, it was sold at auction. By law and standard practice, the sale proceeds should have been applied to the balance I owed, leaving a deficiency balance. However, my credit report shows XXXX reporting a balance of {$9200.00} as charged off. I have never received a clear explanation from XXXX of how that figure was calculated. Its quite possible that XXXX failed to credit the auction sale amount properly or added unwarranted fees to the deficiency. If so, the reported balance is inflated and incorrect. I have disputed this with XXXX ( most recently in XX/XX/XXXX via a written dispute letter ), asking for a breakdown of the deficiency balance. XXXX did not provide any itemization or documentation in return ; they merely replied that the debt was charged off and remains due. This lack of transparency is problematic. Reporting a balance without substantiating how it was derived especially when a collateral was taken and sold is an example of incomplete and potentially inaccurate reporting. Under the FCRA, information that is inaccurate or incomplete must be corrected or deleted files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX figure is unverified and possibly wrong. Additionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly note that the vehicle was repossessed ( it might be coded in the comments, but not in plain language ). It also doesnt show a {$0.00} balance with a transfer if they sold the remaining debt to a collection agency. As of now, I dont see a separate collection agency on my report for this, but I want to ensure XXXX hasnt double-listed it ( once as XXXX, once as some debt buyer fortunately, I only see XXXX entry ). However, XXXX own entry is problematic enough. Third, XXXX XXXX has essentially stopped any direct communication with me since the charge-off, yet this old account continues to wreck my credit. I was not even aware it was still on my credit report until I reviewed it recently, because XXXX hasnt contacted me about it in years. This feels like a set it and forget it approach : they wrote it off, perhaps sold the paper to someone else, and left the negative mark to sit indefinitely. This account is so old that it no longer reflects my current creditworthiness or financial behavior. Keeping it on my report past the legal timeframe is punitive and serves no purpose for current credit evaluation. I have rehabilitated many aspects of my finances since XXXX, and it is disheartening that an obsolete entry like this remains solely due to XXXX improper reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX is reporting an auto loan charge-off that is beyond the XXXX reporting period, likely due to re-aging, and the details of the tradeline ( balance, status ) are inaccurate or unverified. This is a clear breach of the Fair Credit Reporting Acts standards, and its causing me undue harm. Requested Resolution : I am requesting that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX to immediately delete the auto loan account ( Acct # XXXXXXXXX ) from all of my credit bureau reports. By law, this negative account should no longer even be on the reports at this date. The fact that it is indicates non-compliance that deletion will remedy. Additionally, I ask that CFPB ensure XXXX corrects any issues in how it reports dates of delinquency to prevent re-aging. If XXXX sold the remaining debt to a collection agency, they should have updated the balance to {$0.00} and marked it as transferred ; since they didnt, they either still own it ( and thus are failing to collect or update properly ) or they simply reported incorrectly. Either scenario again points to removal as the appropriate outcome. Finally, I request that any inaccurate balance or amount XXXX reported be addressed if they can not document the legitimacy of the {$9200.00} figure, thats further justification that the entry is unreliable and must be purged. In short, I want this XXXX XXXX charge-off removed permanently from my credit history. Its an old, resolved matter ( the car was taken debt effectively settled via collateral and whatever remained should have been handled years ago ). \n\nXXXX is also reporting the last XXXX of my social incorrectly, how do I know this report is to be on my report, if my personal information is wrong","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T03:21:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14004874","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-10T03:16:15.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Finally, I request that any inaccurate balance or <em>amount</em> XXXX reported be addressed if they can not <em>document</em> the legitimacy of the {$9200.00} figure, thats further <em>justification</em> that the entry is unreliable and must be purged. In short, I want this XXXX XXXX charge-off removed permanently from my credit history. Its an old, resolved matter ( the car was taken debt effectively settled via collateral and whatever remained should have been handled years ago )."]},"sort":[7.7898903,"14004874"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":14,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":14}]}},"product":{"doc_count":14,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":14,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denials","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Delay in processing application","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a 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":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":14,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":14}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":14,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":12},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":14,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":14}]}},"company":{"doc_count":14,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kikoff Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mercedes Benz Financial Services","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Oliphant United, Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":14,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":6},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":14,"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":7},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":14,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}