{"took":552,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":39,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7762686","_score":15.794719,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Against Capital One Auto Finance for Violations of Federal and State Laws, Breach of Contract, TILA Violations, Misrepresentation, Willful Non-Compliance I am writing to file a formal complaint against Capital One Auto Finance, citing their alarming and continuous willful non-compliance in the face of legitimate inquiries and concerns related to my auto loan account. On XX/XX/XXXX I diligently sent a debt validation letter to Capital One Auto Finance & its Registered Agent a legally mandated request seeking validation of the legitimacy of my auto loan account. Astonishingly, despite sending this letter in XX/XX/XXXX, my correspondence has remained unanswered to this day. Furthermore, I communicated additional concerns to Capital One Auto Finance & its Registered Agent in XXXX, specifically drawing attention to a suspected case of fraudulent activity intricately connected to my auto loan. My letters, dispatched in XX/XX/XXXX, meticulously outlined the details of the alleged fraud, accompanied by an urgent plea for an immediate and comprehensive investigation. Despite the gravity of the matter and the urgency conveyed, Capital One Auto Finance & its Registered Agent has exhibited a complete disregard by failing to engage in any form of communication or commitment to resolving this critical issue. The lack of response to my inquiries and concerns, particularly within the stipulated time frames, outlines a persistent pattern of non-compliance, which has extended over 10 months. I wish to underscore that their ongoing non-compliance has not only inflicted significant emotional distress, but also demanded a substantial commitment of time and resources to get letters notarized and also imposed a substantial financial burden on me, as all the letters were delivered through certified mail with even additional out of pocket costs for return receipts. Capital One Auto Finance 's ongoing transgressions is in violation of my consumer rights including both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 15 U.S. Code 1681n and 15 U.S. Code 1681o. \n\nUnder 15 U.S. Code 1681n of the FCRA, entities that willfully fail to comply with respect to any consumer are liable for any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure to comply. Moreover, under 15 U.S. Code 1681o, entities that willfully fail to comply with respect to any consumer are liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure to comply, in addition to punitive damages. \nCapital One Auto Finance 's & its Registered Agent actions, or lack thereof, not only infringe upon the FDCPA and FCRA but also pose a serious threat to my consumer rights and financial well-being. They continued to demonstrate a complete disregard for federal, state, common, data protection, regulations, and ordinances. Their disregard for the law and their responsibilities as a financial institution is unacceptable. \n\nFurthermore, Capital One Auto Finance also constitute a violation of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( a ), a provision of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) that implies guilt by estoppel when a party fails to rebut an affidavit. I sent an Affidavit of truth in XXXX along with the other letters under the certified mailing number XXXX, seeking to address the alleged fraudulent activity, and no rebuttal was ever sent back. Capital One Auto Finance has failed to provide a rebuttal, effectively allowing the unrebutted Affidavit to stand as truth in commerce. Their failure to rebut the Affidavit indicates guilt by estoppel under XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( a ). \n\nAttached, please find copies of all relevant correspondence and documentation, including proof of delivery and signatures of the letters I sent and supporting evidence concerning the alleged fraudulent activity violating Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) specifically but not limited to 15 U.S. Code 1635, 15 U.S. Code 1605, 16 CFR 433.1, and 12 CFR 1026.4. These violations encompass a range of critical issues, including mixing cash in a consumer credit transaction, failure to provide clear and conspicuous right-to-rescind paperwork, mishandling of the rescission process, and contractual discrepancies, these violations not only contradicts laws and regulation but raises significant concerns about the legality and transparency of the transaction and contract. \n\nI firmly believe that Capital One Auto Finance 's & its Registered Agent actions, or lack thereof, not only infringe upon the FDCPA, FCRA, and multiple federal laws and regulations but also pose a grave danger to consumers ' faith in the financial system and their rights therein. I demand not only a swift and comprehensive resolution to this matter but also an unequivocal expectation that Capital One Auto Finance provides a comprehensive plan for addressing the significant impact of these violations and errors on me as a consumer. Moreover, I request a plan that empowers me to select the remedies and accommodations I believe are most suitable for rectifying the harm they've caused and upholding my rights. \n\nIn conclusion, Capital One Auto Finance 's actions have not only breached our contract, violated numerous federal and state laws, and infringed upon my consumer rights, but they have demonstrated a consistent pattern of willful non-compliance. Despite my earnest attempts to seek resolution and clarity by sending multiple letters concerning the subject in question, Capital One Auto Finance has, regrettably, chosen to remain unresponsive. They have not only neglected their legal obligations but have also failed to provide any form of restitution or resolution, displaying a concerning lack of compliance with federal laws and regulations. \nThis willful non-compliance not only deepens my concerns regarding their actions but also raises significant questions about their commitment to ethical business practices and the well-being of their customers. It is my hope that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will address these grave violations promptly and decisively, ensuring that justice is served and that consumers like me are protected from such misconduct in the future.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-26T16:13:57.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"33312","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7762686","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-10-26T15:49:39.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I sent an Affidavit of truth in XXXX along with the other <em>letters</em> <em>under</em> the certified mailing number XXXX, seeking to address the alleged fraudulent activity, and no rebuttal was ever sent back. Capital One Auto Finance has failed to provide a rebuttal, effectively allowing the unrebutted Affidavit to stand as truth in commerce. Their failure to rebut the Affidavit <em>indicates</em> guilt by estoppel <em>under</em> XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( a )."]},"sort":[15.794719,"7762686"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11754228","_score":15.578563,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint to report what I believe to be unethical practices by TransUnion, which have caused significant negative repercussions to my credit report over an extended period. Approximately two years ago, I retained legal counsel to address a dispute with XXXX, a company known for engaging in predatory practices that target uninformed consumers by binding them into long-term contracts. At the outset of this legal matter, my attorney issued a formal letter to TransUnion requesting the removal of derogatory information related to this dispute from my credit report. This request was based on the grounds that the contract in question was under legal dispute and that reporting such derogatory information would be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Specifically, the letter cited provisions of the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) in conjunction with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 ), which collectively state that when an alleged debt is disputed and the debtor is represented by legal counsel, the creditor is prohibited from reporting the debt as delinquent. Despite the ongoing dispute and TransUnion 's awareness of the matterevidenced by their communication with XXXX over the past two yearsthey have continued to report negative information on my credit report. Notably, upon receiving my attorneys initial request, TransUnion previously removed the derogatory items from my credit report, demonstrating that they were capable of addressing the issue appropriately at that time. For an extended period, TransUnion refrained from reporting the derogatory items, and this issue did not interfere with my ability to refinance my primary property. During the negotiation process, arrangements were made for a lump-sum payoff related to the XXXX property. However, XXXX proved uncooperative and declined to provide clear account details. Ultimately, I had to access their online portal to ascertain the balance due. A payment, in the form of a check issued to XXXX, was sent to satisfy the amount they indicated was owed. \nDuring this time, other creditors were paid in full, leading me to believe this matter had been resolved. At no point during this period did TransUnion report the account as delinquent. However, several months later, I received a notification through my XXXX account indicating that a derogatory mark had been placed on my TransUnion credit report. This occurred after my refinance had been completed and long after I believed all issues had been addressed. Upon further investigation, I discovered that TransUnion had reported a derogatory mark on my credit report. Additional research revealed that XXXX had received payment, but instead of applying the funds toward the account balance, they allocated the payment to past fees and charges. Consequently, XXXX resumed reporting the account as delinquent to the credit bureaus. TransUnion, in turn, reinstated derogatory marks on my credit report. My attorney has sent multiple formal correspondence to address this issue, yet TransUnion remains the sole credit bureau reporting these derogatory marks. Despite numerous requests and additional letters from my attorney, as well as hiring a third-party company to facilitate the removal of these marks, TransUnion has consistently ignored these requests and continues to report this matter as delinquent. I now receive monthly notifications regarding this issue, which remains unresolved. \nI attempted to initiate financial transactions but encountered significant inefficiencies due to actions taken by TransUnion. Notably, TransUnion is the sole credit bureau contributing to this issue, which has caused considerable frustration. It is deeply concerning that TransUnion appears to disregard consumer interests, particularly when a contract is under legal dispute. Despite the ongoing dispute, TransUnion has continued to act in alignment with the interests of a company widely criticized for questionable practices, including the alleged exploitation of uninformed consumers. TransUnion has repeatedly issued letters stating that XXXX has \" confirmed '' the debt in question. This confirmation is not surprising, given XXXX apparent disregard for legal boundaries, as evidenced by its treatment of consumers. TransUnions continued cooperation in this matter, despite its awareness of the dispute, raises serious concerns about its practices. I formally request that TransUnion acknowledge this dispute, which has been ongoing for an extended period. I have made numerous attempts to communicate this matter through various channels, including correspondence from legal counsel explicitly stating that the disputed item should be removed from my credit report. Despite these efforts, TransUnion has consistently ignored the core of my dispute, instead reiterating responses that XXXX has verified the debt. These responses fail to address the substance of my concerns and disregard the evidence and communications provided. I request immediate and appropriate action from TransUnion to rectify this matter and ensure these derogatory reports no longer show up on my credit report. I have several documents and pictures, including a screenshot of when Transunion initially removed the reports. \n\nIt is essential to realize that all Transunion has done is verify the existence of the debt with XXXX, who, of course, will only look out for themselves. So many letters from my attorney and me have been ignored, and all they do is continue to tell me that XXXX has verified the account 's existence. I want somebody to review this complaint and stop sending me prewritten form letters. The attorney made it very clear as to why this account should be removed. Furthermore, Transunion has been very deceptive in its tactics. I signed up for an account on their site, and after verification, I logged in and could be very active on the site. Suddenly, the next day, I received an error when I tried to log in again, stating that they could not verify my account. At this point, it seems they are doing this on purpose, and they are hurting my credit profile. I don't understand why they were able to remove this when my attorney sent the letter before, but now they have decided to ignore all requests.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-22T16:19:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33313","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11754228","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-22T15:42:41.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is essential to realize that all Transunion has done is verify the existence of the debt with XXXX, who, of course, will <em>only</em> look out for themselves. So many <em>letters</em> from my attorney and me have been ignored, and all they do is continue to tell me that XXXX has verified the account 's existence. I want somebody to review this complaint and stop sending me prewritten <em>form</em> <em>letters</em>. The attorney made it very clear as to why this account should be removed."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[15.578563,"11754228"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18051685","_score":13.903114,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"SUPPLEMENTAL CFPB COMPLAINT NEW EVIDENCE FALSE STATEMENTS IN FURNISHER RESPONSE Concora Credit Inc./ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Milestone Mastercard Prior CFPB Case Nos. XXXX and XXXX Summary This complaint presents new evidence that Concora Credit Inc. ( XXXXervicer for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) submitted factually incorrect, internally inconsistent, and technically impossible information in its XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB. \n\nConcora now claims that my XX/XX/XXXX debit-card payment of {$1100.00} was returned for insufficient funds on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nMy bank statement, payment confirmations, and Concoras own call notes prove this explanation is false. \n\nThe company failed to conduct a reasonable FCRA reinvestigation, supplied inaccurate information to the CFPB, and reported a 30-day late that could not have legally existed under XXXX XXXX credit reporting rules. \n\nI request reopening, supervisory escalation, and enforcement review.\n\n1. Bank Statement Proves the Insufficient Funds Claim Is False ( Exhibit D XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Statement ) Concora claimed it received two insufficient-funds notices ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ). \nMy bank statement shows : No NSF fee No returned payment No reversal entry No decline Balances of {$2200.00} {$8900.00}, far above the {$1100.00} payment Under debit-network rules, a payment can not be returned 13 days later without : a return code, an NSF fee, a reversal entry, or any bank record. \n\nNone exist. \n\nConcoras NSF claim is factually impossible and unsupported by any banking evidence. \n\n\n\n2. Concora Confirmed Receipt of All Payments ( Exhibits A, B, & C ) Concora issued confirmations stating : XX/XX/XXXX Your payment has been RECEIVED ( {$1100.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX Payment received ( {$250.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX Payment received ( {$620.00} ) These confirmations show : The disputed payment was successfully authorized, accepted, and posted I made additional payments immediately when I discovered an issue My account was fully paid before any 30-day delinquency could exist This contradicts Concoras later claim that the account was still 30 days late.\n\n3. Concoras Call Notes Contradict Their Written Explanation ( Exhibit E Call Notes ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Concoras representative : acknowledged lack of notice of any reversal waived fees, indicating awareness of internal error promised to dispute the false late reporting made no mention of insufficient funds or returned payments This directly conflicts with Concoras XX/XX/XXXX narrative and indicates that the returned payment explanation was created after CFPB involvement, not supported by contemporaneous records. \n\n\n\n4. Concoras XX/XX/XXXX CFPB Response Contains Provably False Statements ( Exhibits F & G ) Concoras response asserts : an initial insufficient funds notice on XX/XX/XXXX a final confirmation on XX/XX/XXXX possible notification by my bank account access blockage because I was seeking legal counsel Every one of these statements is contradicted by evidence : My bank statement shows no NSF events I received no bank notice Concora accepted multiple payments after the dates they claim they were receiving NSF notices I did not appoint legal counsel, making their stated reason for blocking access retaliatory These contradictions raise concern that Concora submitted inaccurate or fabricated information to a federal agency and failed its FCRA reinvestigation obligations.\n\n5. The Reported 30-Day Late Is Not Legally Permissible Under XXXX XXXX reporting standards : A 30-day late may ONLY be reported if the account remained continuously unpaid for 30 days after the due date.\n\nThat did NOT occur. \n\nBecause : I made a payment on XX/XX/XXXX, which resets the delinquency clock Concora accepted that payment Concora internally reversed it 13 days later without notice I immediately made two corrective payments ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) There was no uninterrupted 30-day delinquency.\n\nThus, reporting a 30-day late is inaccurate and noncompliant with FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) and 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\n6. Documentation Requested but Not Provided I requested the specific documentation Concora would be required to possess if its explanation were true : the ACH/debit return code for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX the authorization log for the XX/XX/XXXX debit payment and alleged reattempts the bank return notice Concora claims it received the furnishers method of verification ( required under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) ) delinquency calculation records showing continuous nonpayment for 30 days Concora produced none of these items because these events did not occur.\n\n7. Evidence Suggests a Pattern of Deceptive Conduct ( UDAAP ) Multiple factors indicate more than a simple error : Only the highest-fee subprime product ( Milestone Mastercard ) had its payment reversed The reversal occurred 13 days later, inconsistent with debit-network protocols No bank evidence, return code, or NSF record exists Account access was blocked after I exercised my rights The company changed its explanation only after regulatory involvement This suggests a potential pattern of practice designed to retain fee revenue and keep accounts in subprime statusconduct that may constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.\n\n8. Consumer Harm I have been forced to invest substantial time, effort, and resources correcting an error that should never have occurred, including : compiling exhibits, issuing certified letters, filing multiple CFPB complaints, reconstructing payment histories, responding to shifting explanations, and attempting to obtain documents the company is legally required to maintain.\n\nThis level of consumer burden is itself a form of harm recognized under UDAAP.\n\nRequested Action I respectfully request that the CFPB : Reopen the prior cases and treat this as new material evidence contradicting the furnishers CFPB response. \n\nCompel ConcoraXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to produce : the return code, the bank return notice, the authorization log, and delinquency calculation records.\n\nDirect the furnisher to remove the inaccurate 30-day late from all credit bureaus.\n\nRefer this matter to CFPB Supervision & Enforcement and the OCC for review of potential false furnisher conduct and UDAAP violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T16:37:31.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30067","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18051685","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-01T15:43:28.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem during payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer Harm I have been forced to invest substantial time, effort, and resources correcting an <em>error</em> that should never have occurred, including : compiling exhibits, issuing certified <em>letters</em>, filing multiple CFPB complaints, reconstructing payment histories, responding to shifting explanations, and attempting to obtain documents the company is legally required to maintain.\n\nThis level of consumer burden is itself a <em>form</em> of harm recognized <em>under</em> UDAAP."]},"sort":[13.903114,"18051685"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6597052","_score":13.560638,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This letter shall serve as formal Notice of my dissatisfaction with your form letter response to a very serious issue. The FCRA states that Information in a consumer report can not be provided to anyone who does not have a purpose specified in the Act. Companies that provide information to consumer reporting agencies also have specific legal obligations, including the duty to investigate disputed information. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act added many provisions to this Act primarily relating to record accuracy and identity theft. The Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau most of the rulemaking responsibilities added to this Act by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and the Credit CARD Act, but the Commission retains all its enforcement authority I have already filed a dispute with your company as you have acknowledged in your response. In that dispute letter I meticulously identified each area of concern and provided you this the correct information. It is obvious that you did not review these documents prior to writing your response. This is the kind of stall tactic which has frustrated this entire correction process. Please respond to my dispute directly as mandated by law. In addition, I requested a full file disclosure that includes all correspondence I have had with your organization, your investigation methodologies, your policies and procedures regarding the dispute process and your method of verifications. As indicated by the attached copies of letters and mailing receipts, you have been delivered by registered mail both a dispute letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX2022, as well as a follow-up letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX2022 along with the ids they are requesting in their respond to the complaint. As of this moment, you have not done your duty mandated under the law. Your inaction in this matter is inexcusable, if this is merely an oversight then please understand my frustration ; and please correct this mistake immediately. I have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain a loan to save my business. The only thing standing in my way is your erroneous reporting. As you are well aware, federal law requires you to respond within 15 days, yet you have failed to respond. Failure to comply with these federal regulations by credit reporting agencies are investigated by the Federal Trade Commission ( see 15 USC 41, et seq. ). I am maintaining a careful record of my communications with you on this matter, for the purpose of filing a complaint with the FTC and a law suit should you continue in your non-compliance. I further remind you that, as in Wenger v. Trans Union Corp., No. 95-6445 ( C.D.Cal. Nov. 14, 1995 ), you may be liable for your willful non-compliance. Please remember that : ( iii ) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available ; ( iv ) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumers file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the information; and ( v ) a notice that the consumer has the right to request under subsection ( d ) that the consumer reporting agency furnish notifications under that subsection. ( 7 ) Description of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. For the record, if you do not immediately remove this inaccurate and incomplete information, then I intend to seek redress as indicated by FCRA in the form of a {$1000.00} penalty per violation which I will apply for through the CFPB or in a civil action to recover penalties, damages, costs, and attorneys fees, should you continue in your deliberate obstruction of the law. For this purpose, I am carefully documenting these events, including the lack of response REQUIRED under law from you. You are further directed to supply a corrected credit profile to all creditors who have received a copy within the last 6 months, or the last 2 years for employment purposes. Under federal law, you had 30 days to complete your re-investigation, yet you have failed to respond. Your continued delays are inexcusable. Be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within 15 days of the completion of your re-investigation. The financial institution broke a law. Section 604 A Section 2 says that they can only give out information about me if I say it is okay. They do not have my okay and I did not give them any kind of okay - not written nor verbal. 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) says the financial institution can't tell other people my information unless I say it is okay. They never told me that I could say no. 15 USC 1681C ( a ) ( 5 ) says that the financial institution can't put bad stuff about me in reports if it is more than 7 years old. They did that without my permission and that's against the law. 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( A ) ( 1 ) A says that the financial institution can't tell people stuff that isn't true. They also didnt follow the law in 12 CFR 1016.7, which says I can say no to the financial institution at any time. So I am saying no now. Here are the laws being broken by Experian : 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports. 15 U.S. Code 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports. 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-22T00:29:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"121XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6597052","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-02-22T00:16:25.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As <em>indicated</em> by the attached copies of <em>letters</em> and mailing receipts, you have been delivered by registered mail both a dispute letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX2022, as well as a follow-up letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX2022 along with the ids they are requesting in their respond to the complaint. As of this moment, you have not done your duty mandated <em>under</em> the law."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[13.560638,"6597052"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2574249","_score":12.368927,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"WE paid the  Loan  off according to banking standards and sent  three  money orders in the amounts of what we owed at the time. These are the amounts  XXXX ,  XXXX ,  XXXX . Where did this money go? The bank reps told us they would not accept, cashiers checks, money orders or cash.So we were told to send them via a credit account all money orders to  Dept of  Treasury in California who deals with   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX . We believe they lied and forced us into foreclosure. We also got a document from the bank in  XXXX  saying all mortgages were paid off from  the county  recorders office which i followed up with when I got it as I used to work there and was a notary for many banks as  well.. All  mortgages were off the books  six  moths later in  XXXX  they appear now under Green Tree  .We feel  that many people involved committed fraud. The banks and their affiliates including the recorders office of  The county . Which I still have. Talked to a rep on the phone a few days ago and they admitted the debt was paid as agreed I have that phone conversation recorded as they recorded mine too.. Please help me clear this up, end this or at least meet at the table to come to a final conclusion. Also we tried several loan mods with  XXXX  and  two  short sales which both were rejected. Ditech will not allow us to pay our own property taxes or homeowners insurance as they do through escrow. I paid the taxes a few times throughout the years sneaking it  it in.Have  been paying my homeowners as well for more than  two  years.Still they are charging me for this too. I am also having different agencies look into this including my background which was with The state police for 25 years, MY friends are in The FBI,  CIA,  Pentagon and many other offices or branches of federal, state or local government including the  Ag ' s  office.The  IRS as the fraud may cause many errors in what we do n't owe them.The bank may owe them even more as they are reporting something that was paid off as something as a discharge. The document I got is from  XXXX    XXXX   The Vice president of  XXXX  at the time showed all mortgages were paid off at the time of  XXXX  also notarized by here back notary  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  and sent to  my  county to record the mortgages as paid. To make matter worse we living a  XXXX    XXXX    XXXX  home all around us and we are trying to prevent others from getting sick I had a firm come out here remove some but there is so much around us  .I  could only afford so much to get removed. Please help in any way you can.  <P/> This is now with Ditech a   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , as  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  through them under the bus.  <P/>  XXXX  denies all facts and has no standing or original documents supporting their inaction.They are implicit and so it Ditech.   For Fraud and irrelevant debt.  <P/> This was   XXXX   XXXX   response to last complaint.  <P/><P/>  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  is reviewing your inquiry. We require additional time to provide you a complete response. We will update the status of your inquiry on the portal with our response as quickly as possible. Our records reflect that the Home Equity Line of Credit ( HELOC ) ending in  XXXX  was charged off in   XX/XX/XXXX  . Subsequently, the loan was forgiven as part of the Mortgage  Debt Forgiveness Program , reported to the credit bureaus as paid/charged off, and the lien was released. My research reveals that your loan ending in  XXXX  was paid through the    XX/XX/XXXX installment and was not referred our foreclosure department prior to the service transfer. I have enclosed a loan history statement for your reference. On   XX/XX/XXXX , w e transferred the servicing of the loan ending in  XXXX  to Green Tree Servicing  LLC  ( Green Tree ). We notified you of this change in the enclosed letter dated   XX/XX/XXXX  . The new servicer, Green Tree, now supports all the loan servicing for the loan account, including billing, payment processing and customer support. Please contact Green Tree at  XXXX  to discuss any loan servicing-related matters. Representatives are available Monday through Friday from   XXXX   XXXX   to   XXXX   XXXX   and Saturday from   XXXX   XXXX   to   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX . Our records shows that prior to the service transfer, your loan ending in  XXXX  was approved for a Trial Period Plan in the amount of {$1700.00}, effective   XX/XX/XXXX  . However, our records indicate that we did not receive the signed  Intent  to Accept Trial Offer form nor a trial payment in order to proceed with the home retention process. We mailed you additional notices informing you to contact   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  to discuss alternative solutions to bring the account current. However, our records indicate that we did not receive a response with your financial information in order to review the loan for workout options. I have enclosed a copy of the above-mentioned notices for your reference. My research reveals that prior to the service transfer, we reviewed the loan ending in  XXXX  for short sale. However, the short sale reviews were declined as explained in the enclosed short sale declination letters. Our records do not reflect that   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  received payments to satisfy your loan ending in  XXXX  in full nor any information to confirm your claim that  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  informed you to send payments to the Department of Treasury in California. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please fax copies of money order receipts to  XXXX  and I will investigate the matter.  Make  sure your loan number is clearly displayed on all documents you send. Additionally, my research has uncovered no reasonable factual basis to substantiate your claims of fraud. Therefore, we are unable to address your claim in detail at this time. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please provide me with more specific factual detail in support of your claim and I will investigate the matter.   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  respectfully declines your request for assistance as the loan ending in  XXXX  is not being serviced by   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX . Please contact the current servicer of the loan to discuss possible workout options. Furthermore  XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  respectfully declines your request for compensation. We are unable to address your concerns related to Green Tree or any other servicers as the information included in your inquiry does not pertain to   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX . Please understand that  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  is unable to comment on any actions or communications by unaffiliated third parties. As a financial institution,   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  has an obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to report account payment history accurately, whether it is favorable or unfavorable. Therefore, we must respectfully decline your request to remove the negative reporting from your credit file. Account information can not be changed unless it can be demonstrated that the information is inaccurate due to an error in reporting.  <P/> We are now including suspected mail fraud and banking fraud we have the FBI and  Local  Police checking into both.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-07-13T20:28:36.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"08610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2574249","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ditech Financial LLC","date_received":"2017-07-13T20:21:08.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, our records <em>indicate</em> that we did not receive the signed  Intent  to Accept Trial Offer <em>form</em> nor a trial payment in order to proceed with the home retention process. We mailed you additional notices informing you to contact   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  to discuss alternative solutions to bring the account current. However, our records <em>indicate</em> that we did not receive a <em>response</em> with your financial information in order to review the loan for workout options."]},"sort":[12.368927,"2574249"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6165560","_score":12.344299,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom it May Concern, This letter is in regards to possible fraudulent activity and extreme consumer negligence on the part of Capital One where I am the victim. For the remainder of this correspondence \" we '' refers to myself and my fianc ', XXXX, who has my permission to be an integral part of this matter. I've had two Capital One credit cards, one being a Quicksilver Visa Platinum ( XXXX  ) activated in and maintained since XXXX, and the other being a XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) activated in and maintained since XXXX. Generally speaking there were no real issues with either card until XX/XX/XXXX. A payment of {$2000.00} was made to BOTH XXXX and XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. Though these payments totaling {$4000.00} cleared the bank as indicated on our personal bank statement, the XX/XX/XXXX Capital One statements for BOTH cards showed the {$2000.00} payment on each as a transaction described as \" Payment Adjustment '', essentially reversing the credit back onto the balance due. When we discovered their mistake we called and they corrected it which shows on the XX/XX/XXXX statements for BOTH XXXX and XXXX. The true and actual balances due reflected the correction appropriately ... until the XX/XX/XXXX statements. On these statements Capital One inexplicably reversed the payments by listing them as a transaction AGAIN with the description \" Rtn Electronic Phone Pmt ''. Only this time, the same \" transaction '' showed twice, once showing the date XX/XX/XXXX and another showing the date XX/XX/XXXX. Obviously this was reflected in the XXXX statement balance due as an increase of {$4000.00} as if it were a purchase of that value. This error was not seen by me/us until XX/XX/XXXX as we were making a majority of the payments via phone and the balance due stated on the phone was not the same as the one showing on the statement. Once discovered, we again called Capital One to question this mistake and have it corrected ASAP. As a result of that phone call they mailed us a dispute form which we completed and promptly returned by mail. We had hoped this would prompt action. XX/XX/XXXX statement revealed an \" attempt '' of a correction as they literally listed the {$2000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX as a \" Direct Debit Payment AuthDate XXXX '' under the Payments category then again on the exact same day listed the {$2000.00} as a \" Rtn Direct Debit Pmt '' under the transactions category. This strange give and take game they continued to play was repeated on XX/XX/XXXX which showed on the XX/XX/XXXX statement, again on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX of XXXX which showed on the XX/XX/XXXX statement, and again on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX of XXXX which showed ludicrously inaccurate amounts on the XX/XX/XXXX statement. The account was \" charged off '' in XX/XX/XXXX yet both cards were actually still being paid on via phone and were in fact paid off ( by our accounting and according to pay by phone balance ) prior to the accounts being closed by Capital One. Personal bank statements have been obtained and DO confirm this fact. Several phone calls were made in an attempt to discuss this matter and to give them the opportunity to rectify these blatant miscalculations. My biggest concern was that this was likely a result of internal fraud as was discussed in our previous phone conversations with Capital One on several occasions over the months. During the XXXX Pandemic everyone seemed to be working remotely. Because we had mailed them a completed dispute form, it did not alarm us when someone contacted us representing themself as a Capital One employee from the fraud department working remotely from home. After a couple of phone conversations the communication switched to email as this employee was needing to contact other employees in order to resolve this problem and issue me new cards with new numbers per my demand. By this point, the matter had lingered uncorrected for far too long despite the effort we were making. We continued to reach out to Capital One with the sole intention of having someone care enough to actually take the time to look into it and see that the balances had actually been paid off. My patience was gone. I suspected then and still now that there was internal fraud. One of the phone calls I made to Capital One to get help with this was in XX/XX/XXXX and strangely enough I was not told about my card ( s ) being charged off. I told them we had been communicating with someone via email from their fraud department and that we were told that everything was getting straightened out. The response I got put me into a panic. I was told they do NOT communicate with customers through email so they didn't know who we had been talking to but that it couldn't have been the Capital One fraud department. Still, what happened to our dispute form we completed and mailed back to them in XX/XX/XXXX? \nApparently they're currently under fire for personal information being hacked from their \" secure '' system and it's not the first time. I printed off a list of past payments from my Capital One account online and found there to be multiple \" payments '' made from financial institutions NOT associated with me at all! Where was Capital One 's security at? They represent themselves as safe and secure with their advertisements but they grossly failed with me. No red flags, no phone calls. No fraud alert letter was sent. They claimed they sent \" friendly reminder '' letters but I never received any correspondence from them other than statements which ultimately showed different balance due amounts than was stated as the balance due when making a phone payment. \nWe have bank statements, Capital One statements, and copies of emails that prove we were not only working to resolve this with Capital One but that we have in fact paid off both cards. My credit that I worked so hard to protect and improve has been affected by this. The stress and emotional toil from this nonsense has consumed me and plagues me daily. We acquired a name of the \" go to '' in upper management for fraud and customer relations and have spoken to her assistant about the matter. No return phone calls from her demonstrates a lack of due diligence or concern to even investigate the matter much less care enough to correct it. \nPayments were made on time and, when able, modestly above the required minimum. This particular year the plan was to pay off all credit cards and prepare for purchasing a home. Needless to say, Capital One has gotten to big for their britches. I didn't deserve this negligence. I didn't deserve to not have my concerns validated or to not have this matter resolved. It's not a coincidence that my credit report shows all bills, cards, and loans being paid or having been paid off because I pay my bills. With that said, its not even almost logical that I would simply leave Capital One unpaid. \nThank you for taking the time to read this letter. I need help in doing the right thing and I deserve to have this matter resolved to reflect the truth. Im certain Im not the only one this has happened to. Large companies have the capability to sweep their wrong doings under a rug by neglecting or ignoring consumers. Ive been ignored long enough. \nWith gratitude, XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-04T21:04:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"244XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6165560","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-11-04T20:39:14.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Im certain Im not the <em>only</em> one this has happened to. Large companies have the capability to sweep their wrong doings <em>under</em> a rug by neglecting or ignoring consumers. Ive been ignored long enough. \nWith gratitude, XXXX"]},"sort":[12.344299,"6165560"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12067941","_score":11.476993,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"rom : XXXX XXXX XXXX Sent : Thursday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX To : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXpncXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Subject : Re : Follow-Up on Mortgage Payoff and Consumer Credit Matters correspondence # XXXXPNC Bank Hello, I am submitting my XXXX credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX for your immediate attention. Let 's address your claim that there is \" no bank error. '' This credit reporting agency lists a date closed as XX/XX/XXXX. On page 4 of 22, the payment Hello, I am submitting my XXXX credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX for your immediate attention. Let 's address your claim that there is \" no bank error. '' This credit reporting agency lists a date closed as XX/XX/XXXX. On page 4 of 22, the payment history clearly shows issues for XX/XX/XXXX. Does it indicate I was over 120 days late? I'm not sure why it stopped on XX/XX/XXXX because we both know it was way back in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX my first actual late payment. \n\n\n\nFurthermore, the estimated removal date for this item is XX/XX/XXXX. Who updated this informationwas it me or PNC? How can my late payment from XX/XX/XXXX replace my actual late date from XXXX? Despite numerous updates to my credit report, the information remains incorrect and needs to be rectified immediately. \n\n\n\nI demand an explanation for this discrepancy. Should I provide evidence of how many times I have disputed this item in the last year? Why cant PNC simply retrieve a general ledger? Instead, you informed me that you spoke to your legal and credit reporting department, and all is good, with no bank error. \n\n\n\nWhen you claim there is no bank error, is that solely based on your decision to update XXXX to reflect my payoff date in XX/XX/XXXX as my first date of delinquency? This constitutes a bank error. \n\n\n\nDo you possess a copy of my loan modification? I'm prepared to send another copy if needed, just in case it is dismissed. There is no written authorization for you to report an incorrect late payment in place of my actual missed payment. XXXX continues to reflect this late payment, which is harming my credit, and you lack the evidence to justify selecting any late date. \n\n\n\nThe inconsistency across credit agencies is unacceptable, and your refusal to correct my credit report has resulted in significant financial damage, including increased interest rates due to your error. Therefore, the next time you contact me claiming there is no bank error, I expect a thorough and factual explanation rather than a waste of my time. \n\n\n\nI have filed yet another dispute with XXXX. It is imperative that you instruct your credit department to review their reporting and update it as required. This item should have been removed last year when it reached the 7-year mark ; anything less is unacceptable. \n\n\n\nIf we are still discussing this matter by XX/XX/XXXX, I will have been forced to wait 9 years following my first actual late payment. This is in direct violation of the law, which states that items must be removed after 7 years from the first missed payment. I've included a screenshot below showing that PNC has reported this late payment and it remains on my credit report. Its time for accountability, so please ensure the necessary corrections are made promptly. \n\n\n\nThank you. \n\n\n\nBest regards, XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYou removed all late payments from the other credit reporting agency, so you want to tell me that reporting a late payment while on a loan modification was the wrong thing to do and that it should have been removed? Is that considered a bank error? Regardless of how you want to view it, it's a bank error. \n\n\n\nPlease update your error even today. How is this not a bank error? I'm sorry, but your letter stating that it isn't doesn't change the facts. Am I supposed to see it differently just because PNC has stated it in their letter, even though the factual evidence shows otherwise? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInline image Inline image On Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX wrote : I need to clarify a critical point regarding the timeline of changes to my credit report. Initially, I stated that the modifications were made in XX/XX/XXXX, but the fact is that PNC changed the recent payment and delinquency date from the first delinquency date of the XXXX first date of delinquency to XX/XX/XXXX. The first day of appeared on my XX/XX/XXXX credit report, and on the screenshot, it will have the status updated to XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\n\nI possess credit reports from XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX that clearly provide evidence of when the status update occurred and how it was corrected. If you suggest that my current credit report shows only one late payment instead of several, this adjustment should have been made much earliereither when I executed the loan modification or when I paid off the loan in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I should have made my first late payment in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, 7 years when I called PNC in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX to remove this tradeline. \n\n\n\nIf that is true, then your failure to remove all late payments has resulted in damages for me, especially since this was during the modification period. When XXXX took on this case from XXXX, she did not review her notes thoroughly. XXXX 's email is below, and if she stated that she requested a deletion, then it is unacceptable for XXXX to have sent me a letter claiming there was no bank error when changing my last late payment from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in fact, there was an error that needed correcting. Whether or not it was XXXX 's oversight, the bank must have records that have not been properly examined. This situation is costing me money every day, and I expect a clear and logical explanation for this unacceptable oversight. \n\n\n\nIf your letter includes claims that PNC has reported as required by law, please provide a signed agreement related to the loan modification that specifically addresses the revision of the first delinquent payment. If you can not provide this, there is no valid reason to update my first delinquent date to XX/XX/XXXX, particularly since that was the date I paid off the loan and I agreed to this. \n\n\n\nUpon reviewing my agreement again, I found no evidence supporting your claim regarding the right to update the first delinquent date of XXXX. When was I made aware of this change? Please advise. When did I sign my rights away? \n\n\n\nYou mentioned that I have to wait another seven years before this information will be deleted. Will PNC compensate me for the 14 years of erroneous reporting that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act? Will you also reimburse me for all the interest that has resulted from this going back? Who else have PNC targeted? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nToday 's report, Inline image Inline image On Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX wrote : Below is the XX/XX/XXXX report, revealing that accounts were past due for over 120 days. Should I delve back to XXXX for further clarity? Lets revisit this : what was the date of my first delinquency? It certainly wasnt XX/XX/XXXX, as the facts clearly outline below. I trust the letter youre preparing will provide the much-needed evidence of how this situation unfolded. Its high time we addressed this, as it has been dragging on for far too long. \n\n\n\nDo you have a standard operating policy in place that addresses the issues we discussed over the phone? I truly hope so, especially since this information is absent from my loan modification agreement. Its evident that the actual dates of delinquency are established, and there are no clauses in the modification that grant PNC any exemptions from the law. \n\n\n\nWhile weve acknowledged that errors have occurred, I am not focused on the specifics of when, how, or by whom these mistakes were made. What matters now are the facts. If you can not provide a thorough explanation, I kindly ask that you remove the inaccurate information from my credit report. I eagerly await your response regarding how you will rectify the situation caused by PNC 's errors, as it has resulted in a considerable financial setback for me. \n\n\n\nWishing you a wonderful day! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInline image Inline image Inline image On Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX wrote : Lets clarify the dates and statements in the letter, as it is clear that a bank error occurred when the letter claims otherwise. \n\n\n\nFirstly, in the email dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX stated she would remove a delinquency and had contacted XXXX. Today, I also contacted them and requested the removal of the PNC entry. \n\n\n\nI need an explanation for why my first late payment was reported as occurring in XXXX when the credit report indicates an account history with a status code showing it was 180 or more days past due as of XX/XX/XXXX ( see screenshot below ). This situation presents a clear inconsistency, as it should have reflected a late payment in XXXX. Ive highlighted how PNC updated this information and noticed one or two errors. Ive attached another screenshot to illustrate these discrepancies. \n\n\n\nThe corrected first day of delinquency was well before XX/XX/XXXX, right? Isn't that what PNC reported to XXXX? Furthermore, when PNC updated in XX/XX/XXXX, they claimed no damage was caused since the reporting was correct ( I also attached a screenshot from XXXX showing when PNC made the status update in XX/XX/XXXX ). I have highlighted that for you. You forgot that the agencies do keep track of dates updates occur. \n\n\n\nI demand to know the date on which the correction was reflected. What specific dates are you using as a reference? The facts indicate otherwise. This situation has caused me ongoing damage, not just once. If you updated this information, why wasnt it done earlier, like in XXXX when I paid the mortgage in full? You mentioned that the loan modification had no clauses addressing how PNC would handle credit reporting or referencing that any late payment was necessary for loan modification eligibility. PNC advised me that I needed to be late before they could conduct any loan modification. Is this your requirement? If I had to be late before the loan modification, wouldnt that place me in XXXX? Lets consider the logic since your investigation skills are lacking. How many times have I asked PNC to update my credit reporting since you can not get the 1st date of delinquency right? This is causing me emotional pain due to the ignorance and lies. \n\n\n\nRegardless of how you choose to present this in your letter, we need to address the facts. PNC acknowledged the update in XXXX, yet XXXX sent me a letter on XX/XX/XXXX, stating \" no bank error. '' This raises the question : is she disregarding the evident issues? Are your co-workers blind? or was I a victim of deceptive practice and discrimination based? \n\n\n\nYour letter should not state that no bank error occurred. Instead, it should provide an explanation for why this happened, as it violates several laws. I expect this issue to be removed, as it falls under the 7-year rule. If this is a new policy related to my loan modification, please highlight that ; otherwise, I expect you to comply with the law. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX image Inline image Inline image Inline image Inline image Inline image On Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX wrote : Subject : Follow-Up on Credit Report Issues Hello, I wanted to recap our previous discussions regarding my credit report. XXXX is still showing my first late payment as occurring in XXXX. We established that PNC only updated two credit bureaus when I reached out to them in XXXX. Please respect my time and understand that you previously overlooked the evidence I provided, which clearly shows that my first date of delinquency was in XXXX and not XXXX ( FACTS ). Therefore, the late payment in XXXX can not be considered my first late payment. we could also request a payment ledger to make it more clear. Let me call customer service to provide evidence. \n\n\n\nI kindly ask you to thoroughly review all our email correspondence. As mentioned, I prefer to keep all communication in writing from now on and will not be taking any more phone calls. \n\n\n\nAdditionally, we established that the loan modification does not state that it would reset all payments before or after the loan modification ; correct and selectively report only what you want as the first late payment based on my most recent payment. This is why I filed the complaint against PNC. What made you select me to not say it wasn't discriminatory or deceptive? \n\n\n\nPlease note that all credit bureaus keep records of updates made and their respective timeframes. I encourage you to read the loan modification carefully and conduct a more thorough investigation before contacting me again with incomplete information or discrepancies in your story. Also, I will be replying with supporting evidence that contradicts your \" investigation '' Thank you for your attention to this matter. \n\n\n\nBest regards, XXXX XXXX Inline image Inline image On Monday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Good Afternoon, We are preparing a written response regarding your concern. We can also discuss the details over the phone whenever you are available. \n\n\n\nYou can reach me at XXXX. I am available Monday Friday from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\nPlease be advised that this is an unsecured form of communication. In efforts to protect your privacy respond only with general information. \n\n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX XXXX | PNC Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the Customer XXXXpncXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Re : Follow-Up on Mortgage Payoff and Consumer Credit Matters correspondence # XXXXPNC Bank Good Morning XXXX XXXX Sorry I missed your call, but please feel free to reach out to me via email. Thanks, On Thursday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX wrote : Dear XXXX XXXX Good Morning XXXX XXXX Sorry I missed your call, but please feel free to reach out to me via email. \n\n\n\nThanks, On Thursday, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX wrote : Dear XXXX XXXX  I would like to express my gratitude for your attention to this matter. In summary of our recent phone conversation, I have contacted the Office of the Illinois Attorney General for assistance regarding my situation with PNC. Despite my efforts to reach out directly to PNC in order to enforce the seven-year rule applicable to consumer credit, I have encountered challenges. \n\n\n\nThe seven-year rule dictates the duration for which specific negative information remains on an individuals credit report. According to federal law, certain negative entries, including late payments, should be removed from credit reports seven years after the date of the first missed payment that resulted in such status. Unfortunately, I believe PNC has not complied with this regulation, thereby violating both federal and state laws. \n\n\n\nFurthermore, after making multiple requests for goodwill letters to your institution, I have been denied assistance a few times. PNC has informed me that I must wait the full seven years, citing a policy that does not allow consumers to amend their credit reports or request goodwill deletions. This stance is contrary to the practices of many creditors across the country. I also submitted a deletion request in XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced in the attached document, but once again, my request was declined. \n\n\n\nIn my professional capacity, I have facilitated goodwill letters for clients navigating credit challenges and for myself when facing financial difficulties. In my particular case, I resolved accounts subsequent to selling my home, with an agreement from creditors to remove negative entries from my credit report. \n\n\n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, my attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the title company, and I engaged in discussions with PNC Bank to obtain a payoff quote. PNC was informed that I had secured a sales contract with a closing date scheduled for late XXXX. At that time, PNC received the necessary funds to settle the outstanding mortgage. \n\n\n\nIn XXXX, I filed a dispute with the credit bureaus and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding the reporting of my account. I requested an update in light of my compliance with the seven-year rule following your denial and the lack of communication from your co-worker before my case was assigned to XXXX. I received a response indicating that XXXX XXXX reviewed my dispute and concluded that \" no bank error occurred '' in the loan information reported to the credit bureaus. PNC claimed it could not remove the reporting for this loan because it is obligated to provide accurate account information. This statement contradicts my credit report and seems misleading, raising questions and flags. \n\n\n\nDuring a follow-up telephone conversation in which I sought supporting evidence, I was directed to my loan modification agreement. I was informed that, due to my acceptance of this agreement, all payments made prior to that date were removed from my credit report, and I was only flagged for a late payment in XX/XX/XXXX. This assertion contradicts the information provided in PNC 's letters, as the data clearly indicates that PNC caused damages and provided misleading information, which has resulted in ongoing financial harm. If this was the correct procedure, it was not implemented previously, which could have helped me avoid the high interest rates I am currently enduring. \n\n\n\nEnclosed is a copy of my loan modification agreement, which XXXX did not provide to me for my dispute with the CFPB. After contacting PNC to raise concerns regarding this matter, a manager subsequently forwarded me a copy of my agreement. Notably, this document does not contain any language indicating that I waived my rights under the seven-year rule or any provisions that would suggest that PNC operates above the law. This raises serious questions regarding potential discriminatory practices and whether PNC has targeted specific individuals for unwarranted treatment. I attached a screenshot to the email so that this can be based on facts. \n\n\n\nThe ability to mislead consumers to evade legal accountability also raises significant concerns regarding ethical compliance and integrity within the institution. Moreover, I seek clarification on how many other individuals have faced similar rights revocations and whether patterns of discrimination against specific groups have resulted in harm. \n\n\n\nI believe this situation may reflect underlying issues of discrimination or personal bias. After my conversation with XXXX, a PNC manager informed me that the bank supports her actions and will adhere to her recommendations, which include not removing any negative information from my credit report. While the bank asserts that it has not caused me harm, the evidence suggests otherwise. This indicates negligence on the part of the bank, as I informed management of my concerns, yet they did nothing to address the situation. I was also told that XXXX consulted with the legal and credit reporting teams, and they advised her that she was acting in accordance with the law, which I dispute. \n\n\n\nMy credit report now inaccurately reflects only one late payment in XXXX ; however, I have been advised to wait an additional seven years for any negative entries to be removed, despite having paid my debts in full and the interest as stipulated in my loan modification agreement. Nowhere in the documentation does it specify conditions related to credit reporting? \n\n\n\nThe actions taken by PNC Bank have resulted in significant financial harm and have also caused considerable emotional distress. I have been compelled to pay a higher interest rate on my home purchase in order to secure more favorable terms, a direct consequence of the refusal to amend my credit report. I also spent approximately {$19000.00} on discount points in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. Furthermore, due to your inaccurate reporting, I have incurred higher interest rates on credit cards, automobile loans rate at 44 %, personal loans rate at 20 %, and other financial obligations. If my credit report had been updated accurately, I would not be confronting several years of financial repercussions extending from XXXX XXXX XXXX. I'm seeking that PNC make me whole. see the screenshot below for supporting evidence. \n\n\n\nI respectfully request that the Office of the Illinois Attorney General review this matter and gather factual data to determine how many other consumers may have experienced discrimination as a result of PNC 's standard operating procedures and inadequate call screening processes, which fail to ensure compliance with established government regulations but most importantly against the law. \n\n\n\nI ask that you take prompt action to correct the inaccuracies on my credit report and acknowledge that an update has already taken place. The harm inflicted has been significant, and I will not remain silent while my rights as a citizen to enforce the seven-year rule are disregarded. I do not owe anything further to your institution. Additionally, it is disheartening to observe a lack of compassion from a bank that has benefited from federal assistance to maintain its operations. \n\n\n\nI advocate for equitable treatment and urge accountability for hiring employees XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXfessional behavior and violate my rights and the law. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I look forward to your prompt response. \n\n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attachment : Loan modification agreement Evidence : The date below has the wrong date ; the first delinquent date should have been XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. The first PNC revision was to update the date of the first date of delinquency, which was incorrect. \n\nXXXX of many revisions to my credit report by PNC bank. Shows contradictions in their letter. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The letter above contradicts the revised credit report following the PNC review. \n\n\n\nInline image I have also filed many disputes with all three credit bureaus, indicating that PNC had ample time to review and delete before reaching this level. \n\n\n\n\n\nThe contents of this email are the property of PNC. If it was not addressed to you, you have no legal right to read it. If you think you received it in error, please notify the sender. Do not forward or copy without permission of the sender. This message may be considered a commercial electronic message under XXXX law or this message may contain an advertisement of a product or service and thus may constitute a commercial electronic mail message under US law. You may unsubscribe at any time from receiving commercial electronic messages from PNC at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.pnc.XXXX  PNC, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, PA XXXX XXXX pnc.com The contents of this email are the property of PNC. If it was not addressed to you, you have no legal right to read it. If you think you received it in error, please notify the sender. Do not forward or copy without permission of the sender. This message may be considered a commercial electronic message under XXXX law or this message may contain an advertisement of a product or service and thus may constitute a commercial electronic mail message under US law. You may unsubscribe at any time from receiving commercial electronic messages from PNC at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.pnc.XXXX  PNC, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, PA XXXX XXXX pnc.com Reply Reply all","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-12T17:33:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60134","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12067941","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2025-02-12T17:20:48.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am available Monday Friday from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\nPlease be advised that this is an unsecured <em>form</em> of communication. In efforts to protect your privacy respond <em>only</em> with general information."]},"sort":[11.476993,"12067941"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22350932","_score":10.7059765,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Citi denied my dispute of a {$3600.00} unauthorized charge by XXXX XXXX without meaningfully addressing it under the applicable Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, and Regulation Z standards, including the unauthorized-use standard and billing-error procedures. Citi instead applied a credit-card-fraud standard and concluded the charge could not be fraudulent because I had previously provided card information to the merchant for an earlier, authorized transaction ( see Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 ). That is not the correct test for unauthorized use. Citi continued to apply this incorrect framework in its XX/XX/XXXX response even after I expressly identified XXXX as the applicable standard in my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 3 ) and my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB feedback in XXXX # XXXX. \n\nThe most direct evidence that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was unauthorized is XXXX own contemporaneous billing conduct. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX repeatedly demanded payment for the same {$3600.00}, including a XXXX XXXX billing statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ) and two emails with online payment links instructing us to Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, three days after the most recent pay online email, XXXX charged my card {$3600.00} without notification, without a receipt, and without my authorization. A merchant operating under standing card authorization does not send a PAST DUE notice and two pay online emails and then unilaterally charge the card three days later. I first sent Citi the PAST DUE statement as an attachment to an email sent XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 9 ; the PAST DUE statement is separately filed as Ex. 10 ) and sent it numerous times afterwards, including on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 5 ), XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 6 ). The XX/XX/XXXX email included other XXXX emails from XXXX requesting payment. I also explained my unauthorized-use theory tied to them. Citi has never addressed this contradiction. \n\nBackground This matter involves two XXXX XXXX charges of {$3600.00} each, billed to my Citi account on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX charge was authorized when I provided card information for the first installment in connection with the merchants written estimate ( Ex. 12 ). \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX itself acknowledged in writing that the final invoice amount was not settled. In an email from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( Ex. 15 ), the merchant agreed to credit {$190.00} toward the final invoice ( {$99.00} for hotel reimbursement and {$100.00} for inconvenience ). Eleven days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX charged my card the full undiscounted {$3600.00}, without applying the credits it had agreed to and without my authorization. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX charge was not authorized. I was not present when the charge was made, did not provide my card, did not authorize the charge by phone or in writing, and did not receive a receipt. I discovered the charge on XX/XX/XXXX, while reviewing my Citi account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a single dispute covering both the unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX charge and XXXXXXXX XXXX defective work ( Citi assigned Case ID XXXX ). Because Citi 's online dispute form required me to select a single category, I selected goods/services not delivered as expected the sewer system was not working and that issue was foremost in my mind. I clarified in writing two days later that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was also unauthorized, in a XX/XX/XXXX email to XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Regulation Zs billing-error procedures ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) cover both unauthorized use and disputes involving goods/services, and my written notice cured any ambiguity well within the 60-day FCBA window. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after additional defects in XXXX XXXX  work emerged, I filed a separate dispute as to the XX/XX/XXXX charge ( Citi assigned Case ID XXXX ). This CFPB complaint concerns only the first dispute, the XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized charge under Case ID XXXX. \n\nScope of This Complaint My first CFPB complaint, Case # XXXX, was filed because Citi was not engaging substantively with my dispute. At that time, Citi had repeatedly requested documentation I had already submitted, was issuing inconsistent communications, and had not provided a written explanation of its determination. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, in feedback submitted through that case, I expressly narrowed my claim against Citi to the XX/XX/XXXX, charge of {$3600.00} only ( Ex. 24 ). My feedback stated : I am not asking Citi to reverse both charges through the billing dispute process. My primary claim against Citi is that the XX/XX/XXXX, charge was unauthorized under 15 U.S.C. 1643 and should be reversed ( {$3600.00} ), along with any interest or fees that accrued on the disputed balance and correction of any adverse credit reporting. I reserved all other claims against the merchant for defective workmanship, consequential damages, and unpaid credits, which I am pursuing through the North Carolina Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Division and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contractors.\n\nCitis XX/XX/XXXX response did not address the narrower claim I presented in the XX/XX/XXXX feedback. The XX/XX/XXXX letter continued to refer to two disputed charges from a plumbing merchant and relied in part on the argument that the total of the two charges also matched the total price on the merchants initial estimate. Citi was on notice of both the narrowed scope of my claim and the XXXX framework as of XX/XX/XXXX, and its XX/XX/XXXX response engaged with neither. This complaint concerns only Citis failure to properly investigate and its failure to respond to my unauthorized-use claim regarding the XX/XX/XXXX charge. \n\nProcedural History and Citis Repeated Documentation Requests The relevant procedural history is as follows : XX/XX/XXXX I filed the dispute the day I discovered the unauthorized charge. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed XXXX expressly stating that I did not authorize the second charge ( Ex. 7 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted Citis dispute form ( Form ID XXXX ) with a detailed dispute summary and timeline ( Ex. 8 ). The dispute summary listed Unauthorized Charge. XXXX charged my credit card on XX/XX/XXXX, without my authorization as Claim # 1, followed by additional numbered claims regarding workmanship. Paragraph I on page 7 further addresses the unauthorized credit charge, as does XXXX XXXX XXXX on the timeline. My submission included multiple attachments, including the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 10 ), and the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX acknowledging the agreed credits ( Ex. 15 ). In response to Citis question on its form about how the charge was made, I wrote : Not in person or on phone. I do not know how they charged my card for the second payment. I had not authorized them to do so and did not give them my card. I did not receive a receipt. I only learned they charged my card when I noticed it on my Citi account. ( Ex. 8 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed Citi under dispute ID XXXX and expressly advised that much of the documentation I had submitted related to the other XXXX dispute XXXX XXXX. I wrote : If possible, could you please combine the files or review them together so the full context is clear? ( Ex. 16 ). This put Citi on notice that the two XXXX disputes involved overlapping facts, documents, and context. Citi did not substantively respond to that request. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed Citi clarifying that there was both defective service and a credit card charge that we did not approve, again stating that XXXX charged my credit card without authorization. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi issued one letter stating that it was unable to identify or determine that a billing error occurred and reversing the conditional credits ( Ex. 21 ). Although Citis records may reflect that two letters were issued on this date, one for each of the two XXXX case IDs, I received only one such letter on or about XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced by the screenshot of my Citi customer portal ( Ex. 19 ). This was for XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I called Citi the day after I received the XX/XX/XXXX denial letter. The Citi representative on that call told me that Citis notes reflected that the merchant had never responded to Citis dispute submission. I again stated that I did not authorize the XX/XX/XXXX charge. Following that conversation, Citi reopened the investigation. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX / XX/XX/XXXX Citi sent two parallel Billing Dispute Update Important Information letters, one for each of the two XXXX XXXX case IDs ( XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX charge and XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX charge ) ( Ex. 18 ). The letters bore a XX/XX/XXXX date and demanded additional documentation by XX/XX/XXXX. Both letters stated that [ o ] nce this information is received, we will be happy to continue our investigation further. Citi also sent email requests dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in a thread titled Citi Billing Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : {$3600.00}, {$3600.00} : XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). The email body likewise stated that Citi was investigating the amount of {$3600.00}, {$3600.00}, but the email listed only one reference number, XXXX. Citi therefore used one email thread/reference number to request information about both related {$3600.00} XXXX charges. \n\nAlthough the letters were dated XX/XX/XXXX, they were not delivered through my portal until XX/XX/XXXX a seven-day delay confirmed by the portal screenshot, which shows a 'Date Sent ' of XX/XX/XXXX for both letters ( Ex. 19 ). The XX/XX/XXXX response deadline therefore gave me only seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the letters ' XX/XX/XXXX date. The timing is also notable in relation to Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX 'final denial ' : Citi dated the letters nine days after that denial and delivered them sixteen days after it, and Citi 's own XX/XX/XXXX letter confirms that the disputes were not formally reopened until XX/XX/XXXX three days after the letters reached me. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to Citis XX/XX/XXXX email request ( Ex. 5 ) with multiple attachments, including the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ), and other billing documents. In my response I wrote : I have two disputes related to the same amount. First, XXXX charged my card on XXXX [ XXXX ] without authorization. I again stated that the work was still disputed. Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I separately emailed Citis Legal Department ( XXXX XXXX ) and Executive Response Unit ( XXXX XXXX ) directly, copying the billing disputes team ( Ex. 17 ). In that email, I identified both dispute IDs ( XXXX and XXXX ) and explained that my initial XXXX dispute concerned an unauthorized charge, while a later XXXX dispute concerned the same merchant and defective services. I requested escalation to ensure that the dispute is being properly investigated and handled in accordance with applicable consumer protection laws. My email documented in writing that, in the XX/XX/XXXX phone call, the Citi representative had stated the bank had not even received a response from the merchant regarding the charge. I again asked Citi to confirm ( 1 ) that the dispute remained open and under review, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting additional materials, and ( 3 ) that I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. Citi did not directly acknowledge or respond to this XX/XX/XXXX email. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi reopened the disputes, as later confirmed in Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex.2 ), which states that when the disputes were reopened on XX/XX/XXXX, the amounts were temporarily suspended. The same day, I emailed Citis Executive Response Unit and mentioned again that XXXX had charged my card on XX/XX/XXXX without authorization ( Ex. 20 ). I again asked three specific procedural questions : ( 1 ) whether Citi had all of the information I previously submitted regarding the billing disputes on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting any additional materials, and ( 3 ) whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination ( Ex. 20 ). My XX/XX/XXXX email noted : I have asked these questions regarding my billing dispute numerous times since XX/XX/XXXX and have yet to receive a response. Instead, I just get more requests asking me to send information that I have already submitted. Citi did not directly acknowledge or respond to my XX/XX/XXXX email, and the written determinations Citi eventually issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, did not address the procedural questions I had asked. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( made available XX/XX/XXXX ) by the XX/XX/XXXX deadline with a written response and multiple attachments ( Ex. 22 ). My response opened by flagging the delivery timing : I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please note that although your letter is dated XX/XX/XXXX, I did not receive it until XX/XX/XXXX. I was given only seven days to respond, not the fourteen days contemplated by the letters XX/XX/XXXX date. My response expressly stated that ( 1 ) the services were not properly completed and the plumbing system failed shortly after the work was declared finished, and ( 2 ) the charge to my credit card on XX/XX/XXXX was made without my authorization while the work remained actively disputed. I noted that I had previously submitted much of the requested information on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe attachments included the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10, marking the third submission of that document to Citi ), and the detailed dispute summary and timeline that listed Unauthorized Charge as Claim # 1 ( Ex. 8 ). My XX/XX/XXXX response also asked Citi to confirm in writing ( 1 ) whether Citi had all of my previously submitted materials, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting additional materials, and ( 3 ) whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. Citi did not provide written answers to any of these procedural questions. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Billing Dispute team emailed me yet another set of documentation questions, stating : In response to your recent communication with us. We needed specific details to continue with our investigation to resolve the dispute in your favors ( Ex. 5, see also Ex. 6 ). This XX/XX/XXXX email was part of the same Citi-created email thread that listed both {$3600.00} XXXX charges in the subject line and body but included only one reference number, XXXX. I responded the same day with a detailed written argument and multiple attachments ( Ex. 6 ). My response expressly distinguished the first {$3600.00} charge, paid on XX/XX/XXXX, from the second {$3600.00} charge, made on XX/XX/XXXX. I wrote that the second charge was made even though I did not authorize this charge, nor did they send a receipt nor notify me that they were charging my card. I also explained : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a Past Due notice even though the system had not been inspected and the pipes were still exposed ; On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent my husband an email with a statement and invoice reflecting the XX/XX/XXXX payment ; and On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX again emailed my husband requesting payment of the remaining balance. I then stated : the fact that they sent emails on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX asking for payment further confirms that XXXX did not have authorization to charge my card. My response also stated : I intentionally did not pay the remaining balance because the system was not functioning when XXXX claimed the job was complete. I expressly invoked the Fair Credit Billing Act, asking Citi to confirm that this dispute is being handled in accordance with applicable billing dispute requirements under the Fair Credit Billing Act, and confirm that I will receive a written determination. My XX/XX/XXXX attachments included XXXX Invoice # XXXX by name ( Ex. 11 ), the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX to my husband ( Ex. 13 ), the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX to my husband ( Ex. 14 ), and the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted a complaint with CFPB ( XXXX ), seeking a clear status update, confirmation that Citi has all necessary documentation, and a written determination consistent with applicable billing dispute requirements ( Ex. 24 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi issued a written determination ( Reference Number XXXX ) declining credit ( Ex. 2 ). The determination characterized the issue as XXXX of credit card fraud, concluded that the XX/XX/XXXX charge can not be considered fraudulently transacted because I had provided your account information to the merchant for billing purposes, stated that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided, and stated that the disputed amounts would now accrue interest. Citis statement that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided is factually incorrect : on XX/XX/XXXX, I provided XXXX Invoice # XXXX to Citi ( Ex. 11 ), the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT Statement ( Ex. 10 ), and the emails to my husband with invoices attached ( Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 ). Citis XX/XX/XXXX determination did not address the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ), which I had submitted to Citi four separate times ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) and which is the single most direct evidence that the merchant did not have standing authorization to charge my card. \n\nLater the same day ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I sent Citi a written response identifying specific factual and legal errors in Citis determination and asking two direct questions : ( 1 ) whether Citi evaluated my unauthorized-use claim under 15 U.S.C. 1643 and what evidence supported its conclusion that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was authorized, and ( 2 ) whether Citi considered Sweetwaters XX/XX/XXXX PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement in evaluating authorization ( Ex. 3 ).\n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted CFPB feedback in Case # XXXX narrowing my claim against Citi to the XX/XX/XXXX charge only and expressly identifying 15 U.S.C. 1643 as the applicable standard. ( Ex. 24 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Executive Response Unit acknowledged receipt of my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( my letter to Citi is Ex. 3 ), assigned Citi Reference Number XXXX, stated that my communication will receive a deliberate and thorough review, and stated that a response was anticipated within 15 calendar days ( Ex. 4 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Executive Response Team issued a letter ( Ex. 1 ) that did not answer either of my XX/XX/XXXX questions. The XX/XX/XXXX letter did not address XXXX, did not identify any evidence that I authorized the XX/XX/XXXX charge, did not address the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement, did not address Sweetwaters XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX emails to my husband, did not address my XX/XX/XXXX written argument tying those documents to the unauthorized-use issue, did not acknowledge the narrowed scope of my claim, and did not engage with the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence or XX/XX/XXXX feedback. Instead, the letter referred to me internally as the cm, summarized Citis prior position, reiterated the credit-card-fraud framing, directed me to contact the merchant directly, and reaffirmed that the disputed amounts would now be subject to interest.\n\nWhy Citis Fraud Framing Does Not Answer the Authorization Issue Citis XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX letters analyze the XX/XX/XXXX charge under a credit-card-fraud standard and conclude that the charge can not be fraudulent because I had previously provided card information to the merchant. That is not the test. My claim is not that an unknown third party stole my card. My claim is that XXXX was not authorized to charge my card on XX/XX/XXXX. I made the applicable legal standard and the supporting facts explicit in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Citi nonetheless continued to apply the wrong framework. Providing card information for XXXX authorized transaction does not constitute authorization for all future charges. \n\nSweetwaters own contemporaneous billing conduct demonstrates that XXXX was not acting under standing authorization. Citi had the XX/XX/XXXX PAST DUE statement in its possession from XX/XX/XXXX onward. Although the two XXXX disputes had separate reference numbers, I expressly asked Citi on XX/XX/XXXX to combine the files or review them together ( Ex. 16 ), and Citis own XXXX email thread treated the two disputes as related by listing both {$3600.00} charges. Citi had the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payment-link emails and my written explanation tying them to the unauthorized-use issue from XX/XX/XXXX onward : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a billing statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT for {$3600.00}, demanding that I remit payment ( Ex. 10 ). I submitted this statement to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Plumbing emailed my husband a Statement and Invoice with the instruction See payment link here : Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 13 ). I submitted this email to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, three days before the unauthorized charge, XXXX XXXX emailed my husband Invoice # XXXX with the subject line Your Invoice from XXXX XXXX, the statement The job is complete. Please find your invoice from XXXX XXXX  attached below! and the instruction Pay online at : Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 14 ). I submitted this email to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, with no further communication, no receipt, and no notification, XXXX charged my card {$3600.00}. \n\nA merchant operating under standing card authorization does not send a Past Due Please Remit statement, then send the customer pay online payment-link emails twice in five days, and then unilaterally charge the card three days later without further communication. XXXX  own pre-charge conduct is incompatible with any claim of standing authorization. \n\nCiti has had all of these documents for months. The XXXX PAST DUE statement and the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX acknowledging the agreed credits were submitted on XX/XX/XXXX with my initial dispute packet ( Ex. 10 and Ex. 15 ). Citi resubmitted its request for documentation on XX/XX/XXXX, and I again provided the PAST DUE statement, the XXXX Estimate, and additional billing documents again on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). On XX/XX/XXXX I provided additional attachments, including XXXX Invoice # XXXX by name and the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX merchant emails sending payment links to my husband ( Ex. 6, Ex. 11, Ex. 13, and Ex. 14 ). I expressly identified the Past Due notice and the XX/XX/XXXX merchant email in writing in my XX/XX/XXXX response. Citis XX/XX/XXXX determination nevertheless stated that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided. That statement is factually incorrect. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX authorization was a one-time phone authorization. Technician XXXX XXXX called XXXX office, and I provided card information over the phone to a XXXX finance representative for a single installment payment of {$3600.00}. I did not provide my card to XXXX again, did not authorize any recurring or standing charges, did not sign any authorization document, and did not authorize the XX/XX/XXXX charge in any form. Notably, XXXX own Invoice # XXXX ( Ex. 11 ), which Citi has had since XX/XX/XXXX, records the XX/XX/XXXX payment method as XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX payment was in fact made on my Citi XXXX XXXX XXXX, the same account on which Citi posted the disputed XX/XX/XXXX charge. The merchant 's own records therefore misidentify the network of the card it claims to have on file ( which is a material inaccuracy that undercuts any inference that XXXX possessed reliable standing authorization ), and the merchant 's records identifying a XXXX  can not be the source of authorization on my XXXX account. \n\nCiti has had nearly five months to identify any signed authorization for the XX/XX/XXXX charge. It has not done so. Invoice # XXXX contains a pre-printed Customer Authorization block, but the signature lines on the copy in Citis possession are blank. Despite multiple submissions on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and despite my explicit written articulation of the unauthorized-use theory on XX/XX/XXXX, Citi has never identified any signed authorization, receipt, recorded authorization, merchant submission/representment materials, transaction authorization data, internal notes, or other documentation showing that I gave actual, implied, or apparent authority for the XX/XX/XXXX charge. If Citi or the merchant possesses a signed authorization, I request that it be produced. \n\nCitis Procedural Conduct Citis procedural conduct throughout this dispute is itself relevant to whether Citi conducted a reasonable investigation under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ). Four patterns stand out : First, Citi compressed deadlines on the consumer while extending its own timelines. Citis XX/XX/XXXX letters set a XX/XX/XXXX deadline based on the date of the letters, but my Citi customer portal shows the letters were not made available to me until XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 19 ). That gave me seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the letters XX/XX/XXXX date. Citi gave itself approximately two months from its XX/XX/XXXX 'final denial ' ( and seven weeks from the formal reopen on XX/XX/XXXX ) to issue the XX/XX/XXXX determination. \n\nSecond, Citis own communications blurred the two disputes. On XX/XX/XXXX, I asked Citi to combine the files or review them together because the two XXXX disputes involved overlapping documentation ( Ex. 16 ). Citi did not substantively respond. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Citi sent email requests in a thread identifying both {$3600.00} charges but only one dispute reference number, XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). I responded in that Citi-created thread. Citi later issued determinations on both disputes at the same time. Citi can not reasonably disregard the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX response merely because its own email thread listed only one of the two dispute numbers.\n\nThird, Citi sent two parallel we require additional documentation letters dated XX/XX/XXXX ( delivered through the portal XX/XX/XXXX ), one for each case ID, both requesting overlapping documentation that I had already submitted on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX after Citis purported final denial and before Citi formally reopened the investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. Citi has not explained how the disputes could be both resolved and the subject of active documentation requests at the same time.\n\nFourth, Citi did not answer specific procedural questions I asked in writing on multiple occasions. My XX/XX/XXXX email to Citis Legal Department and Executive Response Unit ( Ex. 17 ), my XX/XX/XXXX email to the Executive Response Unit ( Ex. 20 ), and my XX/XX/XXXX response to Citis documentation request ( Ex. 22 ) each asked Citi to confirm whether previously submitted materials had been received, the deadline for additional submissions, and whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. My XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 3 ) additionally asked Citi to confirm whether it had evaluated the XX/XX/XXXX charge under XXXX and what evidence it relied on. Citi did not directly acknowledge or answer any of these procedural questions. Citi eventually issued written determinations on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX addressing the underlying dispute, but those determinations did not answer the specific procedural questions or identify the regulatory standard Citi applied. \n\nNew Conduct Since the Closure of CFPB Case # XXXX Three pieces of new conduct since the prior CFPB case warrant attention : First, Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 1 ) followed Citis XX/XX/XXXX commitment to a deliberate and thorough review of my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 4 ), but it did not engage with the specific questions I posed, did not acknowledge the narrowed scope of my claim as expressed in my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB feedback ( Ex. 24 ), and did not address XXXX even though I had expressly identified it as the applicable standard. The letter did not address the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement, did not address the invoice, did not address the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX merchant pay online emails, did not address my XX/XX/XXXX written articulation of the unauthorized-use theory, and did not acknowledge the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence. It summarized Citis prior position, without addressing any of the specific points raised in my XX/XX/XXXX letter or XX/XX/XXXX feedback. This indicates that the response did not reflect the deliberate and thorough review Citi had promised. \n\nSecond, Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter stated that, with the investigation complete, the disputed amounts would be included in the Balance Subject to Interest Charge, and Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter reaffirmed that interest would now accrue. I object to interest being assessed on the XX/XX/XXXX charge while Citi has not meaningfully addressed my claim under the applicable TILA, FCBA, and Regulation Z standards, including whether the charge was authorized and what evidence supports Citis determination. Citi acknowledges in its XX/XX/XXXX letter that the disputed amounts were properly excluded from interest accrual during the pendency of the dispute. An investigation that does not satisfy the reasonable-investigation requirements of 1026.13 ( f ), and that applied a credit-card-fraud standard rather than the unauthorized-use or billing-error standards required by 1026.13 ( a ) and 1643, does not entitle Citi to resume interest assessment on amounts that remain in dispute under 1026.13 ( g ).\n\nThird, Citis reversal of the conditional credits on XX/XX/XXXX and its decision to treat the disputed {$3600.00} as a valid balance has had a measurable adverse effect on my credit. My XXXX  score declined from XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, which is a XXXXpoint drop ( Ex. 23 ). The decline tracks Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX reversal of the conditional credits, which inflated my reported credit utilization on the Citi account at a time when the underlying authorization question remained unresolved and the disputed {$3600.00} should not have been treated as a valid balance under 1666a. \n\nUntil Citi evaluates the XX/XX/XXXX charge under the correct legal standard and produces evidence supporting any conclusion of authorization, the disputed {$3600.00} should not be reported as a valid balance, should not accrue interest, and should not be treated as a settled item on my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-19T17:10:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27514","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22350932","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-05-19T16:11:21.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Although the <em>letters</em> were dated XX/XX/XXXX, they were not delivered through my portal until XX/XX/XXXX a seven-day delay confirmed by the portal screenshot, which shows a 'Date Sent ' of XX/XX/XXXX for both <em>letters</em> ( Ex. 19 ). The XX/XX/XXXX <em>response</em> deadline therefore gave me <em>only</em> seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the <em>letters</em> ' XX/XX/XXXX date."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[10.7059765,"22350932"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6930712","_score":10.692435,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I have multiple cases/claims opened on this fraud dispute. This letter is a response to the decision made on the fraud case currently under investigation for the above referenced account ( Case # XXXX ). My last denial letter from Citibank was dated XX/XX/XXXX. The following is the list of disputed amounts : XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), and XX/XX/XXXX ( {$500.00} ), which seems to not be included with the disputed amounts referenced in Citibank 's denial letter, the total disputed is and should be {$3500.00}. I HAVE TRIED TO CORRECT CITIBANK OF THIS ERROR MULTIPLE TIMES! \nSecondly, it stated that in the letter that the case was denied due to Citibank records indicating that these withdrawals were made from my account using my banking card ; this is a false statement as it shows on my records that these were ACH transactions facilitated to a XXXX XXXX which I have NO RELATION to and is NOT A REAL COMPANY. I first went to the bank to notify Citibank of this fraud on XX/XX/XXXX. Without checking the Saving 's account, the representative from the Citibank branch located on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY only closed the business checking account. Meanwhile the fraudulent activity was allowed to continue to occur with my savings account, which stayed open. Since I did not have access to mobile app ( citibank shut it down due to fraud activity ), I was not allowed to see the fraudulent activity until later when I received the statement dated XX/XX/XXXX. By then it was too late and the fraudster made 7 withdrawals of {$500.00}, totaling {$3500.00}. I went to the bank after receiving XX/XX/XXXX statement ( email the digital copy of statement ), I went to branch immediately and closed the savings account. Once I suspected the fraudulent activity was occurring in the savings account from the XX/XX/XXXX statement, I notified Citibank and closed the account immediately, but it was too late as {$3500.00} was already withdrawn from the account. Under Citibanks direction, I was advised to contact XXXX BANK, which I assume to be the recipient bank. I followed Citibank 's instructions and obtained a letter from them which I forwarded down to your fraud team. \nI am APPAULED by the mishandling of this case, I feel as though Citibank is making an effort to NOT assist me in this matter and I feel I am fighting a battle against the person who stole my money as well Citibank which is supposed to help me during this trying time. I was NEVER given a provisional credit while they were conducting their investigation. I really hope you can help me rectify this situation with Citibank so that I can be credited the money that was stolen from me. I look forward to your response. \nThe following are dates that I remember including letters via mail, in-person visits to various Citibank branches XXXX and telephone calls made to Citibanks fraud/dispute department. \nXX/XX/XXXX I received a letter in mail notifying me of suspicious activity to my business checking, this was related to the XX/XX/XXXX check On XX/XX/XXXX I went to the branch and found out that someone tried to write a fraudulent check, which was stopped by Citibank. They closed account and opened a new checking account. \nXXXX. I got another notification a week later with another fraudulent alert from citibank. I went into the Citibank branch located in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX XXXX The customer rep closed the recently opened CHECKING ACCOUNT and OPENED ANOTHER ONE. Customer rep from XXXX XXXX XXXX did NOT check the Savings Account, which had fraudulent activity also because it was not checked we did not close it and it remained opened. Since I did not have access to mobile app I was not allowed to see the fraudulent activity until later when I received the statement dated XX/XX/XXXX. By then it was too late and the fraudster made 7 withdrawals of {$500.00}, totaling {$3500.00}. \nXX/XX/XXXX I went to the bank after receiving XX/XX/XXXX statement ( email the digital copy of statement ), I went to branch immediately and closed down the savings. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX form Citibank to reach out to merchant, which I contacted with no resolution. XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX First denial letter with Case ( XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - Went to a different branch with a helpful customer representative who notarized a letter I drafted and faxed letter to Citibanks Executive Department . \nXXXX A representative from the executive Department called and collected more information regarding this case. Filed and submitted an official complaint Referral Form to the FBI XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Letter from Citibank with another Denial ( please see letter ) ( case XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX Spoke to fraud dispute department from Citibank and opened up a new case after denial letter dated XX/XX/XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-04T22:40:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"11354","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6930712","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-05-04T22:30:52.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This letter is a <em>response</em> to the decision made on the fraud case currently <em>under</em> investigation for the above referenced account ( Case # XXXX ). My last denial letter from Citibank was dated XX/XX/XXXX."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[10.692435,"6930712"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8606224","_score":10.035742,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am composing this complaint in response to my most recent correspondence received from Nelnet which includes a threat of negligence and false information. Nelnet Inc. hereinafter the Company is violating my rights. My account should either reflect paid in full or be placed in BILLING ERROR STATUS due to the Company receiving payment, but not applying the payment on my account. In accordance with Article 3 of the UCC, specifically UCC 3-603, not only was tender of payment provided, but the Company is a person authorized to enforce payment under said law.\n\nIn accordance with 12 CFR 1026.13 - Billing Error Resolution The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). AND The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\nAlthough the discharge of the debt was accepted by and filed with the IRS via From 1099-C on XX/XX/XXXX, the discharge has not been applied to my account. I have made several good-faith attempts to resolve the disputes as defined in the Truth In Lending Act ( TILA ) 12 CFR 1026.12 ( c ). I sent letters to explain, detailing the unlawful behavior that constitutes multiple Events of Default on the part of the Company. In short, other than the violations of my consumer rights protected under the CFRs that the Company agreed to, the Company is also engaged in securities fraud under the Security Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities Act of 1933. I have tried multiple times to solve the issue without involving regulatory agencies.\n\nUnder the UCC 3-603 TENDER OF PAYMENT If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates. Despite these violations, another statement of solicitation was sent to me, threatening me, but when I sent a negotiable instrument via registered mail ( which is in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3-104 as legal tender of payment ) for the updated Total Balance ( received by the Company XX/XX/XXXX ) that was stolen, not applied to my account, and no valid response was given as to why the payment was never applied to my account despite me having requested said information. The Company has responded in writing but the response was nothing more than empty threats and language fraud. \n\nAs indicated in the attached XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX excerpt, Nelnet transfers ( treating every transfer as a sale ) debt to various banks, affiliates, and trusts. I have rescinded the right to security interest in the title to my Nelnet account and all related securities in connection thereto on XX/XX/XXXX. Although Nelnet was notified in a timely manner of this change to my one-party contract, they have not acknowledged this change and instead continue to transfer my securities unlawfully. In light of the transfers, as a Noteholder who owns the rights to the securities, the company has defaulted on principal and interest payments owed to me in accordance with the Securities Act of 1933. The fact that the debt is sold from the depositor to the issuer, to the indenture trustee, and around to the other various affiliates in their transaction structure means Nelnet Inc has no rights whatsoever to solicit money from me. This is also a grave violation of the Privacy Act and FERPA of 1974 rules regarding my personal nonpublic information being passed around to said affiliates and trustees. I have never and will never consent to my nonpublic personal information being shared to the aforementioned entities.\n\nBy sending me letters that both ( 1 ) say the total payment due is greater than {$0.00} and ( 2 ) omit credits that should have been applied from the aforementioned payments that I sent, while the Company neglects to present valid documentary evidence regarding the so-called debt-obligation which has been lawfully discharged for many months, as confirmed by the IRS, the Company is engaging in gross violations of The Securities Act of 1933 section 11 which prohibits misrepresentations and omissions of material fact. \n\nAfter XX/XX/XXXX, when former President Roosevelt signed into law HJR 192 which states payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money policy ; and Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. it became immediately lawful to discharge my obligation through the legal tender of payment I sent Nelnet last XXXX ( registered mail number : XXXX ). Further truths resulting from HJR 192 include the fact that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in a particular kind of coin or currency are inconsistent with the declared policy of congress in the payment of debts. Thus, it is clear that, as a result of HJR 192, no one has been able to pay a debt. The only thing I can do is tender payment in transfer of debts, and the debt is perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts in lawful money, removed the substance for our Common Law to operate on, and created a void, as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a Public National Credit system where debt is money ( The Federal Reserve calls it \" monetized debt '' ), pointing to the reason why their refusal to accept my tender of payment is unlawful and why I have recourse.\n\nPlease provide documentary evidence to prove the most recent statements are correct and why the Form 1099-C isnt valid. Otherwise credit my account of the full amount including all late fees, finance charges, and the total value I sent to the Company over the last 5 months. My promissory note with the Company outlines a consumer credit contract. A consumer credit contract is any instrument that evidences or embodies a debt arising from a money purchase loan transaction as defined in paragraphs ( d ) and ( e ) of 16 CFR 433.1. A money purchase loan is a cash advance in return for a finance charge within the meaning of Regulation Z. Therefore the Company is not allowed to send statements in which they misrepresent money owed by me to them when, in truth, they have received multiple payments that have not been applied to my account.\n\nThe fact of the matter is that I am very aware that there is a linked custodial Primary Account connected to my Nelnet account with my name and social security number ( created without my informed consent ), and this account has been used to make it seem as if Nelnet and the other entities mentioned herein are following the laws mentioned herein while they continue to violate my rights.\n\nAgain, in addition to all of those violations, the Company has neglected to pay all principal and interest due to me as a bona fide purchaser and holder in due course of securities ( including said promissory note ) as defined in the UCC Articles 3 in connection to my account. Due to the fact that my application, resulting in said note, which was transferred to affiliates and securitized for a discounted par rate through the United States Treasury, omitted the proper disclosures upon its face, the Company has committed fraud and every entity involved is implicated in such fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\n\nDemands : - My account is to be placed in Billing Error Status until these issues have been fully resolved to my satisfaction.\n\n- My account is to be immediately credited with the greater of {$49000.00} or the Current Balance amount, fully discharging the debt due to previous payments.\n\n- The Indenture Trustee is to wire {$490000.00} to my XXXX account ( 10 times the amount of the stolen securities ) for the damages this has caused myself and my family.\n\n-- Bank Name : XXXX -- Routing Number : XXXX -- Account Number : XXXX - I am to receive written confirmation of these changes to my account via email ( provided below ) ASAP. \n- My credit report is to be fixed to reflect Paid In Full. \n\nAs a consumer and an investor, I have the right to make sure my finances and livelihood are in good standing. If the Company decides that it is not going to comply with the demands in this notice I will be forced to involve more regulatory agencies including but not limited to the SEC, the FDIC, and the OCC regarding securities fraud.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-23T01:33:36.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"787XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8606224","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2024-03-23T00:21:10.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In accordance with Article 3 of the UCC, specifically UCC 3-603, not <em>only</em> was tender of payment provided, but the Company is a person authorized to enforce payment <em>under</em> said law.\n\nIn accordance with 12 CFR 1026.13 - Billing <em>Error</em> Resolution The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges )."]},"sort":[10.035742,"8606224"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18335760","_score":9.929587,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXShellpoint Mortgage ServicingXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXnRe: Notice of Error Under RESPA 1024.35  Improper Delinquency Notice and Foreclosure Threat Dated XXXX, Improper Insurance Premium Disbursement on XXXX, Failure to Cancel/Refund FPI, and Escrow Mismanagement (Loan #XXXX)\\n\\nDear Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing:\\n\\nThis is an updated Notice of Error (NOE) under 12 CFR 1024.35 regarding errors in servicing my loan. Acknowledge receipt within 5 business days and resolve within 30 business days (extendable by 15 with notice) per 1024.35(d)(e). This updates and incorporates my prior QWR  dated XXXX (XXXX XXXX), recent NOEs dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and CFPB complaints (IDs XXXX  plus new complaints filed post-XXXX).\\n\\nThe delinquency notice dated XXXX (reference: \"foreclosureEscalationLetter.pdf\") falsely asserts a delinquency of XXXX and threatens foreclosure proceedings, despite the purported \"missed payment\" stemming entirely from your unauthorized force-placed insurance (FPI) charges and improper escrow management, which are the subject of ongoing disputes under RESPA. This notice is abusive and improper, particularly as I am a XXXX XXXX, constituting financial elder abuse under California\\'s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA, Welf. & Inst. Code 15610.30). It ignores my valid proof of continuous HOA master policy coverage, including the upload on XXXXXXXX (effective XXXX), and violates RESPA\\'s prohibitions on dual tracking and negative actions during error resolution. Although I made a payment of XXXX on XXXX under protest to cure the alleged delinquency and avoid your threatened foreclosure, this does not waive my rights to challenge the notice\\'s validity or seek full refunds for the unauthorized charges that created the artificial shortage.\\n\\nActions Taken to Verify and Upload Insurance Coverage:\\n\\nUploaded the most recent Certificate of Liability Insurance on XXXX (dated XXXX, effective XXXX XXXX XXXX) for XXXX XXXX  HOA, including flood coverage with limits of XXXX  and a XXXX deductible (reference: XXXX XXXX XXXX).\\nCaptured screenshots of the policy document, including current coverage dates, to document the upload process and confirm active coverage.\\nUploaded the policy to the CFPB portal on XXXX and included it in the DFPI complaint submitted on XXXX\\nSent the policy via certified mail on XXXX to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and additionally to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Insurance Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  as specified in the XXXX letter.\\nIssues with Shellpoint\\'s Upload Portal:\\n\\nThe portal design hides uploaded file names after submission, making it challenging to verify or prove which specific documents were received by Shellpoint.\\nNo visible upload history or list of previously submitted files is available, preventing independent confirmation of what has been provided over time.\\nShellpoint provides no feedback or status update on the reviewed policy (e.g., no confirmation email, dashboard notification, or explanation of deficiencies), which complicates tracking, confuses and misdirects the customer as to what, if anything, was wrong with the proof of insurance upload, and allows Shellpoint to merely continue extorting money through its rigged collection process. As the customer, I have been uncertain as to what was wrong since the first attempt to upload the insurance policy on XXXX. For a long time, I have been convinced that I had satisfied the requirement of uploading a valid policy. Afterward, I have only been guessing and assuming what the problem could be. Additionally, I uploaded XXXX XXXX XXXX the policy showing the effective date XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and upon review of this complaint realized I did not receive an email notification. Which only leads me to making assumptions, not knowing for sure what happened, that maybe I did not scroll all the way down to the bottom of the web page and click Submit. Regardless of clicking the Submit button or not, this policy was uploaded to the expressinsuranceinfo portal. It should be on the portal for the customer to see. The portal knows of its online existence and should provide status that it is there and needs to be submitted. Although that should not be necessary if the policy is on the portal. The portal should forward this policy on its server to Shellpoint. This is an easy thing to code on the portal, unless it is the intent of this rigged collection to fleece money from the customer.\\nA lender-placed insurance policy letter dated XXXX disregards the XXXXXXXX upload of XXXX XXXX XXXX  (dated XXXX effective XXXX to XXXX) on the expressinsuranceinfo.com portal. I have definitive proof of this upload with the screenshot in XXXX However, since Shellpoint has never responded to these submissions, I did not send the proof to the designated fax number, XXXX\\nPattern of Violations and Non-Compliance:\\nThe Acknowledgment Loop Trap:\\nThe document you uploaded (XXXX) is a standard form letter designed to satisfy 12 CFR  1024.35(d) of Regulation X (RESPA).\\n\\nThe Trap: The law requires them to acknowledge your inquiry within 5 business days (which they did with this letter).\\n\\nThe Violation: The same law requires them to resolve the erroreither by correcting it or explaining why it\\'s not an errorwithin 30 business days (potentially extendable by 15 days).\\n\\nMy Leverage: Since I stated \"nothing ever is sent that addresses my inquiries,\" Shellpoint is likely in violation of 12 CFR  1024.35(e). I should explicitly mention this violation to XXXX XXXXThe Trap for XXXX  - My monthly payment has increased:\\n\\nMy previous payments were XXXXMy new payment due XXXX XXXX XXXX is XXXXn\\nWarning: If I autopay XXXX for XXXX, it will be considered a \"Partial Payment\" because it is less than the new required amount. It will sit in the suspense account and not be applied, potentially causing a late fee.\\n\\nThe compliance loop:\\n\\nThey receive my Notice of Error regarding the stolen funds.\\n\\nThey send a template acknowledgment letter stating they are \"gathering requested information\".\\n\\nThey close the inquiry without ever providing the information, correcting the error, or explaining their determination, as required by federal lawallowing them to continue improperly billing for force-placed insurance through invalid Mortgage Statements, forcing me to comply with these erroneous charges under threats of foreclosure.\\n\\nThis pattern is exemplified by the XXXX delinquency notice, which escalates threats without resolving prior NOEs asserting the invalidity of the underlying charges. Your failure to accept the HOA master policy, as required under the Deed of Trust Section 5 and California Civil Code (Davis-Stirling Act 4775 and 5300), constitutes bad faith, breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Shellpoint has been on notice for years of the condo status and master policy, making repeated \"non-receipt\" claims fraudulent and abusive.\\n\\nErrors Asserted:\\n\\nImposition of fee/charge without reasonable basis (1024.35(b)(5)): On XXXX you disbursed another XXXX for \"Lender Placed Flood Disbursement\" (attached payment history screenshot), depleting escrow to XXXX despite my XXXX XXXX upload (XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming HOA master policy coverage (effective XXXX XXXX via XXXX XXXX XXXX, including flood at $XXXX  via XXXX XXXX XXXX, updated details: flood coverage limits of XXXX  with XXXX  deductible). This unwarranted XXXX  ignores proofs and the 72-hour update promise (expired), creating artificial shortages. The XXXX statement (reference: \"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to disregard the XXXX upload and CFPB/certified mail submissions, projecting ongoing FPI charges and increasing the monthly payment to XXXX XXXX XXXX (from previous XXXX  with escrow portion at XXXX due to the artificial shortage. Although my payment oXXXX XXXXXXXX  on XXXX (made under protest to cure the alleged delinquency) was applied to clear the backlog and bring the account current, with current principal balance at XXXX and escrow at XXXX as of XXXX, this application effectively forced me to cover the unauthorized FPI charges through my payment. Total recent unrefunded FPI now XXXX  ($XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), with historical data showing a pattern of disbursements totaling XXXX since XXXX partially offset by refunds of XXXX XXXXesulting in a net consumer cost of XXXX (reference: XXXX XXXX XXXX). These charges violate the loan contract\\'s Section 5 (Loan Charges), which requires refund of any sums collected that exceed permitted limits (reference: enclosed Note in XXXX).\\nFailure to accept proof of insurance and cancel/refund FPI (1024.35(b)(11), tied to 1024.37(g)): You failed to honor the XXXX within 15 days, refund overlapping premiums, or update my accountviolating timely resolution despite multiple uploads. The XXXX letter (reference: XXXX explicitly adds a lender-placed policy effective XXXX  disregarding the valid upload on XXXX, and fails to comply with the Deed of Trust\\'s Section 5 (Property Insurance), which allows lender-placed insurance only if borrower fails to maintain coverage. This also breaches the Condominium Rider\\'s provisions, which deem the borrower\\'s insurance obligation satisfied by an HOA master or blanket policy, waiving the need for separate coverage and related escrow charges. Furthermore, as servicer for a XXXX XXXXowned loan, you must follow XXXX XXXX guidelines (Selling Guide B7-3-03), which require acceptance of HOA master policies for condominium projects if they meet coverage standards. The policy also complies with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (RCBAP) standards, recognized by federal law and lenders as sufficient for flood coverage in condominiums. Under California\\'s Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 4775), the HOA is responsible for insuring common areas via the master policy, with annual disclosures required (XXXX), satisfying my individual obligation. Your refusal constitutes bad faith and violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The XXXX  statement confirms ongoing disregard, as it includes an \"Important Message\" about suspense accounts despite my full payment on XXXX  incorrectly implying insufficient funds. The XXXX notice further compounds this by basing threats on these invalid charges.\\nEscrow mismanagement (1024.35(b)(7)): This disbursement ignores adequate funds for taxes (XXXX pre-this as of XXXX representing an adequate cushion in the escrow account, with tax disbursement of XXXX  on XXXX  and my disputes, violating 1024.17(k)(2) (proper advances) and creating shortages from your errors. The escrow account history reflects these ongoing lender-placed charges, contributing to a projected shortage and an increase in monthly escrow payments from XXXX to XXXX effective XXXX, plus a $XXXX monthly shortage recovery (reference: XXXX XXXX). The projected escrow activity for XXXX  continues to include monthly lender-placed flood disbursements of XXXX indicating no recognition of the uploaded policy (reference: escrow statement projections). A late charge of XXXX  was assessed on XXXX amid these issues, despite the adequate cushion providing no justification for such a fee, which per the Note\\'s Section 6(A) applies only to overdue payments of principal and interest, not escrow-related shortages. Furthermore, these unauthorized FPI disbursements created an \"escrow waterfall\" effect, where payments are applied first to escrow items under the Deed of Trust Section 2, causing subsequent payments (e.g., 1XXXX  to appear insufficient and triggering invalid fees, despite timely principal and interest. The XXXX statement\\'s \"Important Message\" about holding payments in suspense is misleading, as I paid the full billing amount on XXXX, yet it implies otherwise. The XXXX  notice escalates this mismanagement by falsely declaring a delinquency based on these artificial shortages.\\nFailure to provide accurate information regarding error resolution (1024.35(b)(11)): XXXXXXXX provides no status/feedback, and you ignored the 72-hour promise, misleading on verification timelines. For submitted Notices of Error (NOE), the only responses received are form letters indicating the matter is \"under review,\" with no substantive updates or resolutions provided. The XXXX  notice ignores these pending disputes and provides inaccurate delinquency information.\\nRecent Unauthorized Escrow Disbursements: Shellpoint has engaged in a pattern of unauthorized escrow withdrawals despite having been provided with proof of a valid HOA Master Policy. The most recent instances of this breach are:\\nXXXX XXXX deducted for \"Insurance Premium Disbursement\"XXXX XXXX deducted for \"Lender Placed Flood DisbursementXXXX XXXX deducted for \"Lender Placed Flood Disbursement\".\\nTotal Impact: These three unauthorized transactions alone totaled XXXX This depletion of funds is the direct cause of the perceived escrow shortage and the subsequent invalid XXXX late fee assessed on XXXX These charges represent proximate cause, as the escrow shortage was not due to my failure to pay but Shellpoint\\'s unauthorized withdrawals, violating the Note\\'s Section 5 requiring refunds of excess sums. The XXXX  notice weaponizes these errors to threaten foreclosure.\\nImproper delinquency notice and foreclosure threat (1024.35(b)(11)): The XXXXXXXX  notice falsely asserts a delinquency and right to foreclose, ignoring pending NOEs and QWRs disputing the charges. This violates 1024.35(e) by failing to resolve errors before escalating, and constitutes dual tracking under 1024.41(f) by advancing foreclosure processes during loss mitigation review (triggered by your notice offering options). As the \"delinquency\" arises solely from disputed FPI, any negative action, including this abusive notice, breaches RESPA\\'s protections during the 60-day dispute period (1024.35(i)) and California\\'s implied covenant of good faith.\\nThese errors violate RESPA, TILA Regulation Z 1026.36(c) (prompt crediting), FCRA 1681s-2(a)(3) (disputed reporting), and constitute UDAAP (deceptive practices). As a XXXX, this is financial abuse under California EADACPA (15610.30). Updated pivot (attached) shows net XXXX  overpayment since XXXX, supporting total XXXX refunds (XXXX historical XXXX XXXX recent).\\n\\nDemands:\\n\\nImmediate refund XXXX to escrow; reverse all FPI disbursements (total XXXX to escrow) per the Note\\'s Section 5 requiring refunds of excess charges.\\nConfirm HOA policy acceptance; cease all insurance billing/demands.\\nProvide updated escrow analysis (taxes only, adjusting balance to XXXX\\nSuppress adverse actions/reporting; provide documents relied on. Rescind the XXXX  delinquency notice and any related credit reporting.\\nProvide a complete log of all insurance document uploads to XXXX associated with my account, including upload dates, file names, IP addresses (if available), submission statuses, review outcomes, and any explanations for rejections or non-acceptance.\\nCease all foreclosure threats or proceedings; confirm in writing that no foreclosure will be initiated based on these disputed charges.\\nNon-compliance escalates to CFPB/XXXX XXXX with evidence. All in writing.\\n\\nSincerely,XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This delinquency notice is baseless and harassing, as I\\'ve never missed a principal/interest paymentthe \"delinquency\" is manufactured from your errors. Even after paying XXXX  under protest, the underlying FPI issues persist, so this NOE remains critical. Escalate to XXXX XXXX  mentioning the 1024.35(e) violation, as they own the loan. Send via certified mail and portal.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-29T07:18:25.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"92019","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18335760","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-29T06:19:10.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\nFailure to provide accurate information regarding <em>error</em> resolution (1024.35(b)(11)): XXXXXXXX provides no status/feedback, and you ignored the 72-hour promise, misleading on verification timelines. For submitted Notices of <em>Error</em> (NOE), the <em>only</em> <em>responses</em> received are <em>form</em> <em>letters</em> <em>indicating</em> the <em>matter</em> is \"<em>under</em> review,\" with no substantive updates or resolutions provided. The XXXX  notice ignores these pending disputes and provides inaccurate delinquency information."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.929587,"18335760"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10549715","_score":9.6812725,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Re : NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE ; Formal Demand for Full Account Disclosure and Ledger Transparency, Certified Verification of Alleged Debt, Cease and Desist Any and All Consumer Reporting in Perpetuity of the Inaccuracy and Incompleteness of Account Ending : XXXX to Any and All Consumer Reporting Agencies Dear Sir/Madam : I write to you with grave concern regarding the continued and deliberate failure of Barclays Bank Delaware XXXX XXXX ) to address the serious matters I have raised in previous correspondence. XXXX silence and refusal to engage with these substantive issues constitute a breach of good faith, trust and transparency, fundamental principles that should guide any reputable financial institution. Despite my repeated demands, XXXX has failed to provide a true and accurate bill, nor has XXXX disclosed the full journal, T-balance, double-entry bookkeeping of the general account ledger or provided the CUSIP number ( XXXX ) associated with the account. As the master beneficiary and registered and beneficial owner of this account, I have an unequivocal right to inspect the demanded records, including all underlying accounting information, to verify that the financial statements and ledgers related to my account are accurate, balanced, and free from errors or discrepancies. It is deeply troubling that this lawful demand continues to be ignored, raising serious questions about XXXX commitment to transparency. Instead of complying with these reasonable and lawful demands, XXXX has persisted in sending generic, computer-generated stall letters that provide no meaningful response. I must ask : why does XXXX consistently refuse to have a qualified individuala man or woman who can swear under oath or by affidavit under penalty of perjurycertify that there is a legitimate debt owed on this account, along with substantiating documentation of the balance claimed to be due? The lack of an appropriate response raises significant concerns about whether XXXX is acting with transparency and integrity, or whether it is, in fact, engaged in conduct designed to deceive. XXXX continued failure to provide the demanded records, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) and pursuant to U.C.C. 9-210, suggests either a deliberate refusal to comply or an inability to substantiate the claims being made against me. This lack of transparency and apparent unwillingness to act in good faith strongly suggests malicious intent and fraud by deception. Let this letter serve as formal notice that if XXXX continues to act in dishonor and refuses to provide the full records and entries of accounting, along with CUSIP number ( XXXX ) as demanded, certified and signed under seal by an authorized agent or representative, under penalty of perjury, I will have no choice but to pursue all available legal remedies which will compel XXXX to produce said documents and proof of claim in a court of law. XXXX refusal to provide these documents and to engage in transparent, good faith dealings has caused, and continues to cause me significant harm, injury and damages. I will not hesitate to hold XXXX accountable in a court of law and seek redress. Furthermore, in response to XXXX recent communication by someone named XXXX, no last name or employee Identification number, who XXXX be a non-affiliated third-party, operating outside the United States XXXX who is unlawfully accessing my private and personal data without my written authorization or consent, dated XX/XX/XXXX concerning the alleged debt associated with the above-referenced account XXXX claims to have XXXX fact, confirmed to be \" validated '' with absolutely no verifiable evidence or proof to substantiate XXXX  position or claim. I would like to formally dispute the validity of the alleged debt and XXXX use of billing statements as sufficient evidence of the alleged amount claimed to be owed. It has been well-established in numerous court decisions that mere credit card billing statements do not constitute valid or sufficient evidence of a debt owed. In particular, courts have ruled that billing statements alone fail to meet the burden of proof required to substantiate the existence or amount of a debt. The following cases support this position : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Ohio XXXX XXXX ( Ohio XXXX ) : The XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX that credit card billing statements alone were insufficient to prove a debt. The court emphasized the need for the creditor to present a signed credit agreement or evidence of the underlying contract. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( A ) ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) : The court ruled that billing statements were not enough to establish a valid debt, especially without a signed contract or other evidence proving that the defendant had agreed to the terms of the debt. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( A ) ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) : The court found that credit card statements were insufficient to prove a debt existed without documentation showing the defendants consent to the credit agreement. XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. App. XXXX ) : This case reaffirmed that billing statements without further documentation, such as a signed agreement, are inadequate to establish the validity of a debt claim. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Ohio XXXX App. XXXX ) : The court ruled that credit card billing statements alone did not establish the terms of the credit agreement or the debtors responsibility to pay under those terms. Given the legal precedent established in the above cases, I respectfully demand that XXXX provide valid and sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged debt, including but not limited to : A copy of the original signed credit agreement, and certified documentation of the proof of funds that created the money/credit on account ( XXXX line XXXX XXXX Certified documentation showing a lawful binding contract between both parties with certified authorization and wet ink signatures of the parties agreeing to the terms and conditions governing the account. Certified documentation of the CUSIP number ( XXXX ) associated with the account ending in XXXX. A certified copy of IRS Form XXXX that confirms XXXX to be the original issuer of the funds and/or credit and me to be the recipient of the funds and/or credit. A certified copy of IRS Form XXXX or any other tax forms, that XXXX has XXXX, or is failing to report the account as a charge-off but not reporting the taxes to the Internal Revenue Service of XXXX XXXX and income XXXX XXXXs collecting. Any and all UCC-1, UCC-3 filings XXXX who the Debtor and who the Secured Party are in XXXX XXXX of the account in question. Any and all documents by and between XXXX and the Federal Reserve XXXX XXXX for any and all application ( XXXX ) for notes in accordance with Federal Reserve Act Section 16 ( 2 ) - Application for notes by Federal Reserve banks pertaining to the account in question. Certified documentation in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) and pursuant to U.C.C. 9-210 of the journal, T-balance, double-entry bookkeeping records of the general accounting ledger ( XXXX ) showing any and all records and evidence of accounts payable, accounts receivables, debit and credit entries, double-entry bookkeeping journal entries, and contra account ( XXXX ). Please note that I am asserting my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and other applicable laws, which require that you cease any and all collection and reporting activities until such evidence is provided. With that in mind, I also want to point out that the consumer information ( trade line ) being reported by XXXX as the responsible data furnisher to the XXXX XXXX Agencies is not being accurately reported and is causing me harm, damage and injury by not being able to acquire goods and services needed for personal, family and household use/purposes. Upon XXXX abrupt and unwarranted closure of the account ( trade line ), the now closed account ( trade line ) is still reporting an alleged remaining balance of {$4700.00} that XXXX XXXX and is being adversely reported on my credit report as a XXXX account. As XXXX is aware, XXXX, as well as all other businesses lawfully acting in XXXX utilizes the IRS form XXXX Cancellation of Debt for the remaining debt obligation not recovered from defaulted credit cards. From speaking with both Certified Public XXXX and the IRS directly, regarding tax obligations, such an IRS form is then reported as INCOME and not as a DEBT on a consumer 's tax filing requirements. While the business can cancel/write-off the account receivable as a BAD DEBT and receive a tax deduction as mentioned in the IRS Topic XXXX. This current issue of XXXX furnishing this inaccurate information on my consumer credit report is clearly not only going against the rules of construction in the area of exclusions per 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ), ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) of reports containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. This inaccurate information as to what the IRS Publication 4681 defines as XXXX and not XXXX is being furnished to third party data furnishers as well. Perhaps this is a small oversight that XXXX is not aware of and can address quickly at no cost by submitting a request to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc to remove this inaccurate derogatory account from my credit profile since the DEBT has been canceled and reported as INCOME as well as to stop the current harm, injury and damage so that I can continue to prosper in my journey of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, the fundamentally protected rights guarded and guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and Constitutions Bill of Rights, the bedrock and cornerstones of this great nation. If for some reason, this is not the correct understanding of the exclusions part in the construction of a consumers credit report with accurate information and the correct IRS reporting of a Debt charged-off and reported as Income, I would appreciate XXXX letting XXXX know, with accurate supporting details, so that I can be a better informed consumer and honest taxpayer. Furthermore, upon the transfer and securitization of the credit card receivables ( asset-backed security ), the issuer, XXXX ceases XXXX be the holder in due course, relinquishing its legal standing to enforce payment from the account holder. This is because, through the securitization process, the issuer, XXXX, conveys and transfers its rights, titles, and interest in the accounts receivable to the trust or XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), which now holds the legal claim to those assets. Consequently, any attempt by the issuer, XXXX, to enforce payment directly from the account holder would be unlawful and a misrepresentation, as the issuer, XXXX no longer possesses the accounts receivable ( asset-back security ) and has waived all of its rights associated with them upon their transfer. This transfer removes the issuers, XXXX, authority to claim or collect on the debt, rendering any further attempts to do so without proper legal standing. Please be advised that, due to XXXX failure to properly report the income associated with the charge-off of my account and XXXX  failure to issue a Form XXXX, I will be forced to notify and instruct the IRS to conduct an XXXX of this account. It appears that XXXX has not fulfilled its obligation to report the cancellation of debt as income to both myself and the IRS, which has prevented me from appropriately accounting for the tax liability related to this unreported income. This lack of proper reporting is a serious matter, and I am taking steps to ensure that it is fully investigated and that all parties comply with their legal responsibilities regarding the accurate reporting of canceled debts. This notice constitutes XXXX 's final opportunity to provide the demanded documentation within fifteen ( XXXX ) days of the date of this notice. Failure to comply will result in the immediate initiation of legal action. The preponderance of evidence indicating fraud and theft by deception, carried out with malicious intent to harm, damage, and injure, is now apparent. Should legal proceedings become necessary, this evidence will be presented as admissible proof of XXXX  actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-23T18:35:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10549715","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2024-10-23T18:00:53.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of complying with these reasonable and lawful demands, XXXX has persisted in sending generic, computer-generated stall <em>letters</em> that provide no meaningful <em>response</em>. I must ask : why does XXXX consistently refuse to have a qualified individuala man or woman who can swear <em>under</em> oath or by affidavit <em>under</em> penalty of perjurycertify that there is a legitimate debt owed on this account, along with substantiating documentation of the balance claimed to be due?"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.6812725,"10549715"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210440","_score":9.617605,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this statement to report multiple inaccuracies, unverifiable data entries, and procedural violations that have occurred in connection with the reporting and reinvestigation of several accounts appearing on my consumer credit file with TransUnion. The information below outlines what has taken place, what steps I have taken to resolve the issues, and the ways in which TransUnion and certain furnishers have failed to comply with their legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nOver the past several months, I have been reviewing my credit file for accuracy and completeness. In doing so, I identified several accounts that were being reported as derogatory, delinquent, or in collection status, even though I have repeatedly requested validation, proof of ownership, and proper documentation to support their inclusion. These accounts include entries furnished by a variety of companies such as a charge-off reported by a bankcard issuer, an auto finance company, a collection agency, and a state child-support division. Each of these tradelines continues to appear on my TransUnion file without sufficient evidence that they were verified in accordance with federal law. \n\nMy first concern is that TransUnion has failed to conduct a full and fair reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ). When I initially disputed the accounts, I provided written explanations identifying the specific items in question and requesting a copy of the documentation used to verify them. The bureau responded within the thirty-day window but did not provide any documentary evidence, only a statement that the accounts had been verified as accurate. The response lacked the method of verification disclosure required under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). I am entitled to know the procedure used in the verification process, including whether TransUnion verified the information through e-Oscar, manual review, or a third-party vendor. Without that information, there is no way to confirm that the investigation was fair, thorough, or based on original evidence. \n\nIn each dispute, I also requested the source of the data and the legal authority allowing those furnishers to report to the bureau. For instance, one of the disputed accounts involves a financial institution that reported a charge-off balance despite the fact that the account had been paid and closed long ago. Another involves an automobile finance company that reported a derogatory status even though the account was settled. In both cases, I asked for the original contract or agreement showing my consent for continued reporting, but no such documentation was ever provided. Instead, I received generic statements that the information was confirmed by the furnisher. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Reliance on automated responses, without underlying proof, does not satisfy this requirement.\n\nAdditionally, one collection account was reported by a company claiming to have purchased or been assigned the debt from another lender. When I asked for the Forward Flow Agreement, Purchase Agreement, or other proof of assignment, no evidence was provided. Without a clear chain of title, there is no way to establish that the reporting entity has a legal right to furnish this data. This situation also raises FDCPA concerns, as debt collectors are prohibited from continuing collection or reporting activities without proper validation under 809 ( b ). Despite my formal requests, the collection tradeline remains on my TransUnion report, negatively affecting my creditworthiness.\n\nA further issue involves a state-level child support account reported as being 120 days late. While I understand that child support agencies may furnish information, this particular entry reflects outdated or inaccurate data. Payments have been made and the balance does not reflect the correct amount. I requested documentation of the verification process and the data source used by TransUnion to confirm the reported figures. The bureau has not provided any such proof or indicated whether the data was validated through direct contact with the state agency or through a third-party batch transmission. Without transparency into the system logs or audit trail, it is impossible to determine whether the information is accurate. As a result, the report may be disseminating incorrect financial data to lenders and employers, causing ongoing harm. \n\nEach of these disputed entries has significant consequences. The presence of multiple derogatory accountsparticularly those listed as collection or charge-offhas lowered my credit scores, limited my access to credit, and subjected me to higher interest rates. This harm has continued despite my timely efforts to dispute the information and request validation. I have kept records of all correspondence, including the dates on which I sent disputes, the tracking numbers for certified mail, and the responses received from TransUnion. The bureau has consistently failed to provide substantive documentation or proof of the datas authenticity. \n\nThe procedural deficiencies in these reinvestigations demonstrate systemic noncompliance with FCRA obligations. Section 602 ( A ) of the FCRA declares that consumer reporting agencies have a duty to ensure fairness, accuracy, and confidentiality in credit reporting. TransUnions reliance on electronic confirmation through automated systems does not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation. Courts, including the Third Circuit in XXXX XXXX TransUnion Corporation and the XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have ruled that a credit bureau must conduct an independent review rather than merely rely on the furnishers word. My case mirrors those precedents. TransUnion did not obtain or review any original documents, did not contact me for additional information, and did not supply the method of verification or audit trail when requested. Therefore, I believe the reinvestigation process was inadequate and non-compliant. \n\nAnother violation concerns TransUnions failure to properly mark the accounts as disputed by consumer. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), when a consumer disputes an account directly or indirectly, the bureau must clearly note that the item is under dispute. During my review of recent credit disclosures, I noticed that the disputed accounts are still shown as ordinary derogatory entries without any consumer disputes this account notation. This omission misleads third-party users of the report and contributes to ongoing reputational and financial harm.\n\nI also question TransUnions adherence to the data retention and reinsertion rules outlined in 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). When unverifiable information is deleted following a reinvestigation, the bureau is prohibited from reinserting it without certification from the furnisher and notice to the consumer within five business days. I have reason to believe that certain accounts previously disputed and temporarily removed were later reinserted without the required certification or notice. This pattern suggests a breakdown in internal compliance procedures and record-keeping practices.\n\nBeyond the credit bureaus conduct, I am equally concerned about the furnishers behavior. Each furnisher is legally required under 623 ( b ) to conduct its own investigation once notified by a bureau of a consumer dispute. They must review all relevant information and report the results back to the bureau. Yet, in multiple instances, the same inaccurate information continued to appear, indicating that the furnishers either failed to investigate or did not provide supporting documentation. TransUnions continued publication of that unverified data demonstrates a failure to exercise reasonable procedures for accuracy. \n\nThe cumulative effect of these practices is a credit report that does not accurately reflect my true credit history. Certain accounts show inflated balances, outdated delinquency dates, or statuses inconsistent with payment history. Others continue to appear long after they should have aged off under the seven-year obsolescence rule of 605 ( a ). These errors distort the overall risk profile presented to creditors and can unfairly influence decisions on employment, housing, and insurance. \n\nTo date, I have attempted to resolve these matters directly through the established dispute channels. I have sent written disputes on multiple occasions, including certified correspondence referencing specific accounts. I have also submitted supporting evidence such as payment confirmations, correspondence from furnishers, and explanations of inaccuracies. Despite these good-faith efforts, TransUnion has not corrected or deleted the disputed information. Instead, it has repeated the same boilerplate response stating that the information was verified as accurate. This form of response, without evidentiary support, fails to satisfy the transparency and fairness requirements that the FCRA was designed to enforce. \n\nFrom a procedural standpoint, TransUnions actions raise questions about its internal audit trail and data governance. Under 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( a ) ( 2 ), consumers have the right to obtain the sources of information and the identification of each person that procured a consumer report for employment purposes. I have never been provided with those details. I have requested the data furnisher identifiers, timestamps, and sequence of updates associated with the disputed tradelines. To date, none of that information has been shared. A proper audit trail should show when the account was first reported, by whom, and each modification thereafter. The absence of that transparency undermines the reliability of the entire reporting process. \n\nIt is also unclear whether TransUnion has ensured compliance with its furnishers under 607 ( d ), which requires the maintenance of reasonable procedures to assure that users of reports receive accurate information. The persistence of obviously inconsistent data suggests that TransUnion has not exercised adequate oversight. For example, a tradeline reported as closed and paid by the furnisher still appears as collection/charge-off on my file. That discrepancy could not persist if proper matching, data cleansing, and validation procedures were in place.\n\nIn addition to statutory obligations, industry standards such as the Metro 2 reporting format require that furnishers accurately code accounts for payment status, date of first delinquency, and consumer dispute indicator. When bureaus fail to enforce these standards, systemic inaccuracies occur. In my case, some accounts display inconsistent payment histories, missing update dates, and conflicting high-balance figures. These errors indicate that either the furnisher or the bureau did not follow established Metro 2 compliance rules. Regardless of which party is responsible, TransUnion bears the ultimate duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy under the FCRA.\n\nThe practical impact on me as a consumer has been substantial. The presence of unvalidated derogatory accounts has reduced my credit standing by several points, caused loan denials, and led to the loss of favorable financing terms. I have spent considerable time and effort attempting to correct the inaccuracies, including sending disputes, making phone calls, and gathering documentation. Each reinvestigation cycle results in the same outcome : a brief acknowledgment letter followed by a generic statement that the accounts were verified. No underlying documentation is ever produced, and no genuine review appears to take place. This cycle erodes trust in the consumer reporting system and defeats the purpose of the FCRAs safeguards. \n\nFurthermore, TransUnions responses fail to meet the reasonable investigation standard articulated by federal regulators. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has repeatedly emphasized that credit reporting agencies must do more than pass disputes through an automated platform like e-Oscar. They must evaluate all relevant evidence and, when necessary, obtain original documentation from furnishers. In my situation, there is no indication that any such steps were taken. The outcome letters contain identical phrasing regardless of the disputes content, suggesting a form-letter process rather than an individualized investigation. \n\nAnother area of concern involves the bureaus communication with furnishers. When a consumer disputes an item, 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) requires the bureau to forward all relevant information provided by the consumer to the furnisher. I included detailed explanations and supporting documents with my disputes, yet furnishers later stated that they never received those materials. This suggests that TransUnion may not have forwarded my evidence, thereby depriving furnishers of the opportunity to review it and ensure accuracy. Such failure compromises the entire reinvestigation process. \n\nThe FCRA also obligates credit bureaus to provide notice to the consumer once a dispute is completed, including the results and an updated credit file reflecting any changes. The results letters I received did not specify the factual findings, the evidence reviewed, or the identity of the verifier. Without that information, I can not assess whether the investigation was properly conducted or whether the data can be trusted. This lack of transparency violates both the spirit and letter of the FCRA. \n\nMoreover, the continuing publication of unverified information constitutes ongoing harm. Each day that these inaccurate tradelines remain on my credit report, they are being disseminated to third parties. This dissemination of false or misleading information may constitute defamation and invasion of privacy under 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). The damages include loss of credit opportunities, emotional distress, and time spent correcting errors that should never have existed.\n\nFrom a broader perspective, these failures highlight weaknesses in the automated dispute process. The heavy reliance on electronic systems such as e-Oscar allows disputes to be reduced to two-digit codes that oversimplify complex factual issues. Consumers provide detailed explanations, but those explanations are often truncated or converted into generic codes like XXXX Not XXXX or XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. As a result, the nuances of each dispute are lost, and furnishers respond with canned statements affirming the prior reporting. The credit bureau then marks the item verified and closes the case, even though no meaningful validation has occurred. That is precisely what has happened in my situation. \n\nGiven the number of accounts involved, the variety of furnishers, and the repetitive nature of the bureaus responses, I believe this represents a systemic failure of compliance rather than an isolated oversight. TransUnions duty under 607 ( a ) to maintain reasonable procedures for accuracy extends to its handling of consumer disputes, its communication protocols with furnishers, and its reinsertion safeguards. All of these areas appear to have broken down in my case. \n\nI am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review these practices and compel corrective action. Specifically, I ask that TransUnion be required to provide : A detailed description of the methods used to verify each disputed account, including whether the verification was conducted manually, electronically, or through a third-party vendor. \n\nCopies of any documentation obtained from furnishers during the reinvestigation process. \n\nAn audit trail or system log showing when the disputed items were reported, updated, or verified, including the identity of the furnishers and agents involved. \n\nProof that all disputed accounts are properly marked as consumer disputes this account on the file currently being distributed to third parties. \n\nWritten confirmation that unverifiable information will be deleted and not reinserted without certification and notice. \n\nIn addition, I ask the CFPB to ensure that TransUnions dispute handling and data verification procedures comply with the statutory requirements of the FCRA and the guidance previously issued by the Bureau regarding the use of e-Oscar and automated dispute platforms. Consumers have the right to meaningful investigations, not cursory checks that rubber-stamp whatever the furnisher provides. \n\nWhile I understand that credit bureaus process XXXX  of accounts, volume can not excuse non-compliance. Each consumer report must meet the maximum possible accuracy standard. When a bureau allows unverified or inaccurate data to persist, it undermines the integrity of the entire credit reporting system. In my case, these failures have resulted in financial, professional, and personal harm that could have been avoided through proper validation and communication. \n\nI am submitting this complaint in good faith and with the hope of achieving an accurate and fair credit report. My intention is not to avoid legitimate obligations but to ensure that only verified, lawfully reported information appears in my file. I respectfully request that the CFPB facilitate an independent review of TransUnions handling of my disputes and require the deletion of all unverifiable or inaccurate data. I further request written confirmation of corrective actions taken by both the bureau and the furnishers involved. \n\nIn conclusion, the events described above demonstrate that TransUnions reinvestigation process was incomplete, non-transparent, and inconsistent with the requirements of federal law. Despite multiple good-faith attempts on my part, the bureau has continued to report derogatory accounts without proof of their accuracy or authenticity. The lack of documentation, failure to provide the method of verification, absence of dispute notations, and potential reinsertion of unverifiable data collectively represent serious compliance failures. These practices have caused tangible harm and must be addressed through regulatory oversight. \n\nI ask that the CFPB hold TransUnion and its data furnishers accountable for these violations, ensure the immediate correction or deletion of the disputed items, and require the bureau to implement stronger validation and audit controls going forward. My objective is simple : to have a consumer credit report that is complete, accurate, and verified according to law. I trust that the Bureau will review these matters carefully and take the appropriate steps to enforce compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T00:25:46.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"71203","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210440","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T00:25:17.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, it has repeated the same boilerplate <em>response</em> stating that the information was verified as accurate. This <em>form</em> of <em>response</em>, without evidentiary support, fails to satisfy the transparency and fairness requirements that the FCRA was designed to enforce. \n\nFrom a procedural standpoint, TransUnions actions raise questions about its internal audit trail and data governance."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.617605,"17210440"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17210535","_score":9.60803,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this statement to report multiple inaccuracies, unverifiable data entries, and procedural violations that have occurred in connection with the reporting and reinvestigation of several accounts appearing on my consumer credit file with TransUnion. The information below outlines what has taken place, what steps I have taken to resolve the issues, and the ways in which TransUnion and certain furnishers have failed to comply with their legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nOver the past several months, I have been reviewing my credit file for accuracy and completeness. In doing so, I identified several accounts that were being reported as derogatory, delinquent, or in collection status, even though I have repeatedly requested validation, proof of ownership, and proper documentation to support their inclusion. These accounts include entries furnished by a variety of companies such as a charge-off reported by a bankcard issuer, an auto finance company, a collection agency, and a state child-support division. Each of these tradelines continues to appear on my TransUnion file without sufficient evidence that they were verified in accordance with federal law. \n\nMy first concern is that TransUnion has failed to conduct a full and fair reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ). When I initially disputed the accounts, I provided written explanations identifying the specific items in question and requesting a copy of the documentation used to verify them. The bureau responded within the thirty-day window but did not provide any documentary evidence, only a statement that the accounts had been verified as accurate. The response lacked the method of verification disclosure required under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). I am entitled to know the procedure used in the verification process, including whether TransUnion verified the information through e-Oscar, manual review, or a third-party vendor. Without that information, there is no way to confirm that the investigation was fair, thorough, or based on original evidence. \n\nIn each dispute, I also requested the source of the data and the legal authority allowing those furnishers to report to the bureau. For instance, one of the disputed accounts involves a financial institution that reported a charge-off balance despite the fact that the account had been paid and closed long ago. Another involves an automobile finance company that reported a derogatory status even though the account was settled. In both cases, I asked for the original contract or agreement showing my consent for continued reporting, but no such documentation was ever provided. Instead, I received generic statements that the information was confirmed by the furnisher. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Reliance on automated responses, without underlying proof, does not satisfy this requirement.\n\nAdditionally, one collection account was reported by a company claiming to have purchased or been assigned the debt from another lender. When I asked for the Forward Flow Agreement, Purchase Agreement, or other proof of assignment, no evidence was provided. Without a clear chain of title, there is no way to establish that the reporting entity has a legal right to furnish this data. This situation also raises FDCPA concerns, as debt collectors are prohibited from continuing collection or reporting activities without proper validation under 809 ( b ). Despite my formal requests, the collection tradeline remains on my TransUnion report, negatively affecting my creditworthiness.\n\nA further issue involves a state-level child support account reported as being 120 days late. While I understand that child support agencies may furnish information, this particular entry reflects outdated or inaccurate data. Payments have been made and the balance does not reflect the correct amount. I requested documentation of the verification process and the data source used by TransUnion to confirm the reported figures. The bureau has not provided any such proof or indicated whether the data was validated through direct contact with the state agency or through a third-party batch transmission. Without transparency into the system logs or audit trail, it is impossible to determine whether the information is accurate. As a result, the report may be disseminating incorrect financial data to lenders and employers, causing ongoing harm. \n\nEach of these disputed entries has significant consequences. The presence of multiple derogatory accountsparticularly those listed as collection or charge-offhas lowered my credit scores, limited my access to credit, and subjected me to higher interest rates. This harm has continued despite my timely efforts to dispute the information and request validation. I have kept records of all correspondence, including the dates on which I sent disputes, the tracking numbers for certified mail, and the responses received from TransUnion. The bureau has consistently failed to provide substantive documentation or proof of the datas authenticity. \n\nThe procedural deficiencies in these reinvestigations demonstrate systemic noncompliance with FCRA obligations. Section 602 ( A ) of the FCRA declares that consumer reporting agencies have a duty to ensure fairness, accuracy, and confidentiality in credit reporting. TransUnions reliance on electronic confirmation through automated systems does not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation. Courts, including the Third Circuit in XXXX XXXX TransUnion Corporation and the XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have ruled that a credit bureau must conduct an independent review rather than merely rely on the furnishers word. My case mirrors those precedents. TransUnion did not obtain or review any original documents, did not contact me for additional information, and did not supply the method of verification or audit trail when requested. Therefore, I believe the reinvestigation process was inadequate and non-compliant. \n\nAnother violation concerns TransUnions failure to properly mark the accounts as disputed by consumer. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), when a consumer disputes an account directly or indirectly, the bureau must clearly note that the item is under dispute. During my review of recent credit disclosures, I noticed that the disputed accounts are still shown as ordinary derogatory entries without any consumer disputes this account notation. This omission misleads third-party users of the report and contributes to ongoing reputational and financial harm.\n\nI also question TransUnions adherence to the data retention and reinsertion rules outlined in 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). When unverifiable information is deleted following a reinvestigation, the bureau is prohibited from reinserting it without certification from the furnisher and notice to the consumer within five business days. I have reason to believe that certain accounts previously disputed and temporarily removed were later reinserted without the required certification or notice. This pattern suggests a breakdown in internal compliance procedures and record-keeping practices.\n\nBeyond the credit bureaus conduct, I am equally concerned about the furnishers behavior. Each furnisher is legally required under 623 ( b ) to conduct its own investigation once notified by a bureau of a consumer dispute. They must review all relevant information and report the results back to the bureau. Yet, in multiple instances, the same inaccurate information continued to appear, indicating that the furnishers either failed to investigate or did not provide supporting documentation. TransUnions continued publication of that unverified data demonstrates a failure to exercise reasonable procedures for accuracy. \n\nThe cumulative effect of these practices is a credit report that does not accurately reflect my true credit history. Certain accounts show inflated balances, outdated delinquency dates, or statuses inconsistent with payment history. Others continue to appear long after they should have aged off under the seven-year obsolescence rule of 605 ( a ). These errors distort the overall risk profile presented to creditors and can unfairly influence decisions on employment, housing, and insurance. \n\nTo date, I have attempted to resolve these matters directly through the established dispute channels. I have sent written disputes on multiple occasions, including certified correspondence referencing specific accounts. I have also submitted supporting evidence such as payment confirmations, correspondence from furnishers, and explanations of inaccuracies. Despite these good-faith efforts, TransUnion has not corrected or deleted the disputed information. Instead, it has repeated the same boilerplate response stating that the information was verified as accurate. This form of response, without evidentiary support, fails to satisfy the transparency and fairness requirements that the FCRA was designed to enforce. \n\nFrom a procedural standpoint, TransUnions actions raise questions about its internal audit trail and data governance. Under 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( a ) ( 2 ), consumers have the right to obtain the sources of information and the identification of each person that procured a consumer report for employment purposes. I have never been provided with those details. I have requested the data furnisher identifiers, timestamps, and sequence of updates associated with the disputed tradelines. To date, none of that information has been shared. A proper audit trail should show when the account was first reported, by whom, and each modification thereafter. The absence of that transparency undermines the reliability of the entire reporting process. \n\nIt is also unclear whether TransUnion has ensured compliance with its furnishers under 607 ( d ), which requires the maintenance of reasonable procedures to assure that users of reports receive accurate information. The persistence of obviously inconsistent data suggests that TransUnion has not exercised adequate oversight. For example, a tradeline reported as closed and paid by the furnisher still appears as collection/charge-off on my file. That discrepancy could not persist if proper matching, data cleansing, and validation procedures were in place.\n\nIn addition to statutory obligations, industry standards such as the Metro 2 reporting format require that furnishers accurately code accounts for payment status, date of first delinquency, and consumer dispute indicator. When bureaus fail to enforce these standards, systemic inaccuracies occur. In my case, some accounts display inconsistent payment histories, missing update dates, and conflicting high-balance figures. These errors indicate that either the furnisher or the bureau did not follow established Metro 2 compliance rules. Regardless of which party is responsible, TransUnion bears the ultimate duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy under the FCRA.\n\nThe practical impact on me as a consumer has been substantial. The presence of unvalidated derogatory accounts has reduced my credit standing by several points, caused loan denials, and led to the loss of favorable financing terms. I have spent considerable time and effort attempting to correct the inaccuracies, including sending disputes, making phone calls, and gathering documentation. Each reinvestigation cycle results in the same outcome : a brief acknowledgment letter followed by a generic statement that the accounts were verified. No underlying documentation is ever produced, and no genuine review appears to take place. This cycle erodes trust in the consumer reporting system and defeats the purpose of the FCRAs safeguards. \n\nFurthermore, TransUnions responses fail to meet the reasonable investigation standard articulated by federal regulators. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has repeatedly emphasized that credit reporting agencies must do more than pass disputes through an automated platform like e-Oscar. They must evaluate all relevant evidence and, when necessary, obtain original documentation from furnishers. In my situation, there is no indication that any such steps were taken. The outcome letters contain identical phrasing regardless of the disputes content, suggesting a form-letter process rather than an individualized investigation. \n\nAnother area of concern involves the bureaus communication with furnishers. When a consumer disputes an item, 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) requires the bureau to forward all relevant information provided by the consumer to the furnisher. I included detailed explanations and supporting documents with my disputes, yet furnishers later stated that they never received those materials. This suggests that TransUnion may not have forwarded my evidence, thereby depriving furnishers of the opportunity to review it and ensure accuracy. Such failure compromises the entire reinvestigation process. \n\nThe FCRA also obligates credit bureaus to provide notice to the consumer once a dispute is completed, including the results and an updated credit file reflecting any changes. The results letters I received did not specify the factual findings, the evidence reviewed, or the identity of the verifier. Without that information, I can not assess whether the investigation was properly conducted or whether the data can be trusted. This lack of transparency violates both the spirit and letter of the FCRA. \n\nMoreover, the continuing publication of unverified information constitutes ongoing harm. Each day that these inaccurate tradelines remain on my credit report, they are being disseminated to third parties. This dissemination of false or misleading information may constitute defamation and invasion of privacy under 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). The damages include loss of credit opportunities, emotional distress, and time spent correcting errors that should never have existed.\n\nFrom a broader perspective, these failures highlight weaknesses in the automated dispute process. The heavy reliance on electronic systems such as e-Oscar allows disputes to be reduced to two-digit codes that oversimplify complex factual issues. Consumers provide detailed explanations, but those explanations are often truncated or converted into generic codes like XXXX Not XXXX or XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. As a result, the nuances of each dispute are lost, and furnishers respond with canned statements affirming the prior reporting. The credit bureau then marks the item verified and closes the case, even though no meaningful validation has occurred. That is precisely what has happened in my situation. \n\nGiven the number of accounts involved, the variety of furnishers, and the repetitive nature of the bureaus responses, I believe this represents a systemic failure of compliance rather than an isolated oversight. TransUnions duty under 607 ( a ) to maintain reasonable procedures for accuracy extends to its handling of consumer disputes, its communication protocols with furnishers, and its reinsertion safeguards. All of these areas appear to have broken down in my case. \n\nI am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review these practices and compel corrective action. Specifically, I ask that TransUnion be required to provide : A detailed description of the methods used to verify each disputed account, including whether the verification was conducted manually, electronically, or through a third-party vendor. \n\nCopies of any documentation obtained from furnishers during the reinvestigation process. \n\nAn audit trail or system log showing when the disputed items were reported, updated, or verified, including the identity of the furnishers and agents involved. \n\nProof that all disputed accounts are properly marked as consumer disputes this account on the file currently being distributed to third parties. \n\nWritten confirmation that unverifiable information will be deleted and not reinserted without certification and notice. \n\nIn addition, I ask the CFPB to ensure that TransUnions dispute handling and data verification procedures comply with the statutory requirements of the FCRA and the guidance previously issued by the Bureau regarding the use of e-Oscar and automated dispute platforms. Consumers have the right to meaningful investigations, not cursory checks that rubber-stamp whatever the furnisher provides. \n\nWhile I understand that credit bureaus process XXXX  of accounts, volume can not excuse non-compliance. Each consumer report must meet the maximum possible accuracy standard. When a bureau allows unverified or inaccurate data to persist, it undermines the integrity of the entire credit reporting system. In my case, these failures have resulted in financial, professional, and personal harm that could have been avoided through proper validation and communication. \n\nI am submitting this complaint in good faith and with the hope of achieving an accurate and fair credit report. My intention is not to avoid legitimate obligations but to ensure that only verified, lawfully reported information appears in my file. I respectfully request that the CFPB facilitate an independent review of TransUnions handling of my disputes and require the deletion of all unverifiable or inaccurate data. I further request written confirmation of corrective actions taken by both the bureau and the furnishers involved. \n\nIn conclusion, the events described above demonstrate that TransUnions reinvestigation process was incomplete, non-transparent, and inconsistent with the requirements of federal law. Despite multiple good-faith attempts on my part, the bureau has continued to report derogatory accounts without proof of their accuracy or authenticity. The lack of documentation, failure to provide the method of verification, absence of dispute notations, and potential reinsertion of unverifiable data collectively represent serious compliance failures. These practices have caused tangible harm and must be addressed through regulatory oversight. \n\nI ask that the CFPB hold TransUnion and its data furnishers accountable for these violations, ensure the immediate correction or deletion of the disputed items, and require the bureau to implement stronger validation and audit controls going forward. My objective is simple : to have a consumer credit report that is complete, accurate, and verified according to law. I trust that the Bureau will review these matters carefully and take the appropriate steps to enforce compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T00:25:46.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"71203","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17210535","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-13T00:19:40.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, it has repeated the same boilerplate <em>response</em> stating that the information was verified as accurate. This <em>form</em> of <em>response</em>, without evidentiary support, fails to satisfy the transparency and fairness requirements that the FCRA was designed to enforce. \n\nFrom a procedural standpoint, TransUnions actions raise questions about its internal audit trail and data governance."]},"sort":[9.60803,"17210535"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6711637","_score":9.554297,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing this complaint against SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union and it's Loss Mitigation Department in response to their abusive and negligent loan servicing practices. Despite the length of this complaint, it is by no means a comprehensive accounting of my experience and I am willing to elaborate and/or provide additional documentation if requested.\n\nAfter falling behind on my mortgage due to a COVID related hardship, I was contacted by a representative from SchoolsFirst who recommended enrolling into their COVID-19 Forbearance program. I was initially hesitant at the idea of a lump sum payment, but agreed after being reassured that I would have multiple options upon conclusion of the forbearance such as a forbearance extension, reduced monthly payments via a loan modification, as well as a deferral. Prior to this hardship I had maintained over 200 consecutive mortgage payments that spanned 12 years of owning one home and six years of owning two homes. Having never been in this sort of situation before, I felt that I could trust SchoolsFirst and appreciated their offer of a reprieve. \n\nAs my forbearance was drawing to a close, SchoolsFirst once again reached out to me to discuss my options. I remember this call vividly because it was such an unusual occurrence for them to contact me through my work number. We discussed my intention to remain in forbearance for the full year with an expected start payment date of XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as the plan to defer the past due amount. Upon the conclusion of the extended forbearance I resumed making my regular monthly payment. After encountering an issue with making the payment in the third month, I called SchoolsFirst and was informed that my payment had been refused because I had a past due balance of over XXXX XXXX  dollars, which was due in full. I recalled the plan that we had discussed in the fall of XXXX  at which point SchoolsFirst informed me that a deferral was not something that was granted automatically as the forbearance had been, and that I needed to process the paperwork. Although I was alarmed to learn that the suspended payments had not been deferred like I'd been led to believe, I was told not to worry because they would work with me to restructure any arrearage once I'd submitted my application.\n\nIt then took several weeks for their application packet to arrive in the mail in spite of their claims that they had already sent it out multiple times. The weeks evolved into months (and eventually years) of an endless cycle of my application being denied any sort of consideration, and returned to me as \"incomplete\". Reasons for being deemed \"incomplete\" included but were not limited to: Document not received (even though I had confirmations of receipt),  expired documents required resubmittal (among them documents with no expiration date and documents that had not expired, such as a w-2 form in XXXX), document missing a signature (it was not) (see attachment 1), incorrect form entirely (even though they were the ones who had provided the form to me in the first place), and the list goes on. I was repeatedly required to submit documentation that I'd already resubmitted multiple times. On more than one occasion they claimed they hadn't received the required \"missing\" documentation in time, closing out my application, and forcing me to start the application process all over again.  At the same time I was also inundated with a barrage of (what I would describe in retrospect as) XXXX  from SchoolsFirst which appeared to not be written with any context whatsoever, as they would request that I submit an entirely new application from scratch (along with requesting the exact same information and documentation all over again), as if that had been our very first and only communication thus far. These letters would also ignore any of the phone call transactions I'd had with them during that time. This all served to further confound my understanding of where I was at in the process, and what was being asked of me, thus hindering my ability to jump through their absurd hoops. \n\nAccording to SchoolsFirst, they are the owner, assignee, and servicer of my loan. Despite the fact that SchoolsFirst provides services exclusively to California, they contract with a New Jersey-based third party subservicer. SchoolsFirst uses this distance as an excuse for the delay in sending and receiving time-sensitive mail. It would often take several weeks for them to notify me in writing of whatever new barrier existed now. Considering today's technology, their decision to utilize antiquated methods of communication like this speaks volumes. This is all undoubtedly by design, as it had originally taken only one phone call with an incomplete application for SchoolsFirst to agree to \"assist\" me with a forbearance in the first place. And of course when I initially applied for the loan, and when I opened a Home Equity Line of Credit on my home I was immediately notified through a Single Point of Contact via direct phone call and/or email- of exactly what was missing and exactly what they still needed, even going so far as to meet me in person to retrieve these documents. Naturally the severity of my delinquency, my perceived creditworthiness, and the fate of my home (my most valuable asset and investment to date), have been held as a hostage along a timeline that SchoolsFirst has moved forward only to their benefit and at their leisure. \n\nI had eventually begun calling Loss Mitigation almost daily, sometimes multiple times throughout the day just to check on the status of my application. I learned to take every conversation with a grain of salt, as the sheer volume and scope of the downright lies, misinformation, and misrepresentations I've been provided from one representative to the next has been truly inconceivable. Among the representatives I have spoken to I have been: yelled at, hung up on, lied to, told that there is simply nothing that they can do to help me and to just \"sit tight\", spoken to in a condescending manner, left on hold for an obscene amount of time often just to be hung up on anyway, and my personal favorite- being hung up on and (when I called back) finding out my file had been notated as a \"Spanish-Speaker only\". Information I have been given has varied between unhelpful, incorrect, inconsistent, and illegal. For example, one of the more innocuous lies I'd been told was that my actual lender was XXXX XXXX. According to XXXX XXXX and SchoolsFirst, it is not. \n\nEven when these agents were competent enough to understand the issue at hand, or considerate enough to pretend like they cared, there was still no point in talking to them because they did not have any decision making authority. They had no ability to rectify errors, and they could not (or would not) transfer you to anyone who did. On more than one occasion I requested to be provided a Single Point of Contact under the California Homeowner Bill Of Rights. In response I was either outright refused, ignored, or told that they were simply unable to transfer me. During one phone call in particular I spoke with a lady who specifically introduced herself as my Single Point of Contact. When I requested to be transferred to her in a subsequent phone call, I was told that I could not be transferred, and I have never heard from that woman again. \n\nIn fact, there was no escalation process. Their scam is to hide behind a seemingly incompetent and undertrained call center that is ultimately incapable of providing accurate information, and incapable of providing any actual assistance to distressed homeowners. I've had to take off what's amounted to weeks from work in an attempt to find a resolution on this matter (being restricted to east coast business hours while living in a west coast time zone has made this all the more difficult). A review of two months of cell phone bills showed that I had called in 27 times and spent 343 minutes on the phone in that span alone. And yet my time has just been wasted away while on the phone for hours, with no resolution in sight. \n\nFor a while I could not even figure out who my servicer was because that answer varies depending on who you ask or which documents you're looking at. The information is obfuscated by the fact that SchoolsFirst misleads their borrowers by referring to their third party subservicer as simply their \"Loss Mitigation Department\". It took some time (over two years) and some serious investigating just for me to even figure out that I was dealing with two entirely different businesses because both businesses claim only one name. I have only ever received mail from \"SchoolsFirst\" and never \"XXXX\" even when the letter has indeed been sent by XXXX. XXXX  employees specifically introduce themselves as SchoolsFirst employees (despite the fact that their company exists on the opposite side of the country). Its not just via telephone conversations; they do this on legal documents as well. The woman who filed the Substitution Of Trustee appointing XXXX XXXX XXXX as the new trustee for my loan- swore to a notary in Missouri that she was the \"Vice President Document Execution\" for \"SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union\". Yet this same woman represented herself with the exact same title in the Notice of Default that was recorded in my county in California, but instead working for \"XXXX XXXX, servicer for SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union (see attachments 2 and 3). Another person I spoke with refused to even confirm whether he worked for XXXX  or SchoolsFirst. They would not confirm which company they worked for, and yet SchoolsFirst both gives free access to and forces me to furnish private and confidential information to every random work-from-home low level call center employee who picks up the call, just to get information on my own loan. Their misrepresentations have made it nearly impossible to know who it is I should be in contact with and who it is that I have been in contact with. \n\nTheir fraudulent and obscured identity has also made it easier for SchoolsFirst to provide varying degrees of conflicting information, and nobody to be held accountable. One example of this was on one occasion in particular I had called Loss Mitigation while at my wits end, wanting answers to a myriad of questions, and during this conversation I received the following information (information in italics) which contradicted the information I had been given previously: The forbearance I had been granted had been a \"regular\" forbearance. I had not been granted a \"COVID forbearance\" because my \"hardship did not qualify.\". (Prior to this I had no idea that there was more than one type, I've since been told that there isn't, and I'm still not sure where the truth is in either of those statements. None of the CARES act had applied to me because my loan was/is not federally backed, and therefore my loan had not been protected under any state or federal guidelines. Learning that I did not have a federally backed loan was both shocking and infuriating as this was in direct conflict with what I had been previously told by another agent and with what SchoolsFirst had communicated in writing. These communications were therefore intentionally misleading, as they had made it very clear to me at the time that I did in fact have a federally backed loan (see attachments 4,5 and 6). It was during this conversation that I was informed for the first time that the forbearance I had entered into had only been for a total of 3 months (XXXX XXXX and XXXX of XXXX), not for the year as we had discussed. According to their records, the phone call I had with Loss Mitigation in which I extended the forbearance never happened. While I am unable to retrieve my employer's phone records from nearly 3 years ago, I have attached the loan statement that had been prepared in the month following what would have been the end of the forbearance that clearly stated You accepted a forbearance. (see attachment 7). After being confronted with this shocking disregard for any truth, I requested an investigation into the recordings of my conversations. I was initially told that they do not keep recordings. I've since been told that they only keep up to six months worth of recordings. These conversations took place two and a half years ago.\n\nI was recently provided a copy of the Loan Activity correspondence between Loss Mitigation and I. I've attached a few of those excerpts to this complaint (See attachments 8, 18, and 31). It serves as a window, but it is not complete. This is because the \"complete\" report omits information, and omits entire conversations such as the one in which I extended the forbearance (as well as others that can be substantiated through my cell phone records). For example, it logs numerous attempts to call me often followed by \"customer hung up\", but omits that when these calls actually did occur, they were in fact robocalls that did not lead to a live person, but instead an automated message informing me to call SchoolsFirst. Each time I would return the call, the agent would have no idea why I'd been told to call. There were several instances upon which I would receive this notice mere minutes before the close of business, which left me no time to call back even if I'd wanted to. I thought this was a particularly cruel sort of call to receive, as I was already being held captive in a desperate and indefinite state of worry and XXXX  over my home. The notes also log their attempts to contact me via email, but they omit how I cannot view whatever was written in that email because my \"account status\" prevents it. There are also several notations on there that are very clearly not related to me. For example on XXXX \"POSTDATED CHECK.. TAD XXXX MADE PMNT XXXX DATED FOR FRIDAY XXXX RFD LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT THANK YOU FOR CALLING BCU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MEMBERSHIP\" (see attachment 8). I do not own checks; its XXXX  for Gods sake. I have never owed nor paid specifically XXXX to SchoolsFirst, I have never even heard of XXXX, and I have never  been let go from my place of employment. While this meticulous record keeping has nothing to do with me, perhaps they should find and review the notes of the person who wrote that post dated check (if they even exist) to see if my notes are with theirs.\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, over a year after I had exited the forbearance, I finally received a letter from SchoolsFirst which stated, \"A review on XXXX determined the application is complete and no further information is needed at this timeWe will not initiate any foreclosure actions or proceedings by sending first notice or filing first legal documents until your complete assistance package has been evaluated.\" (see attachment 9). The following day, like a sick joke, I received another letter from SchoolsFirst which stated \"Please be informed your mortgage loan has been referred for foreclosure proceedings. We did not receive a response to the previous letters we sent regarding foreclosure prevention alternatives, but if you are still interested, it is not too late\" (see attachment 10). I received two additional letters dated XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX informing me that a Notice of Default had been recorded against my property. In response I sent three separate Qualified Written Requests via certified mail in which I contested the Notice of Default and requested an itemized statement, but those letters have never been acknowledged (see Attachment 11). The Notice of Default specifically indicated \"XXXX XXXX XXXX\" as \"the date contact with the borrower was accomplished pursuant to Civil Code Section XXXX\". However, according to the loan activity notes as provided by Loss Mitigation,  no such contact ever occurred on that date.\n\nImmediately leading up to the filing of the Notice of Default my application had been refused for months as SchoolsFirst kept refusing my application and repeatedly asking me to submit a \"signed financial form\". This was several months of me calling back in a perpetual state of confusion and having them look through my application to verify that it was: a.Received b.The correct form and c.Not missing a signature. This would be followed up with receiving yet another letter from SchoolsFirst informing me to submit a \"signed financial form\". They finally let me know months later that I had been submitting the wrong form the entire time because they had sent the wrong form to me. I've attached one of my latter responses to SchoolsFirst that directly addressed this (attachment 1). Coincidentally, this had lasted right up until they had filed the Notice of Default. \n\nSoon after, SchoolsFirst resumed their \"missing documents game. Their new document request was originally posted with such a vague description that I was forced to call Loss Mitigation in an attempt to get clarification on what was even being asked of me. Loss Mitigation's original interpretation of the request was wrong of course, which prolonged the delay even further. Even after I had successfully submitted the requested document, SchoolsFirst continued to refuse acceptance of the document for weeks. Attached is my 3rd submission to them regarding this (see attachment 12). Despite the multi-colored map I drew outlining how this document was indeed what they asked for, it was also rejected.\n\nIn spite of my tireless efforts to meet their demands and in spite of their promises to work with me, on XXXX XXXX  my request for assistance was denied. The three programs I was considered for were  FORBEARANCE PLAN, REPAYMENT PLAN  and  LOAN MODIFICATION. I was denied a forbearance because my hardship reason does not meet program guidelines. The repayment plan was denied because after they reviewed my financial information, it was determined that your income is insufficient to qualify for any foreclosure alternative programs at this time. And lastly I was denied a loan modification because after reviewing my housing expense to income ratio we determined that it does not meet the requirement for a loan modification (see attachment 13). Using my \"housing expense to income ratio\" to deny assistance is a highly self-seeking decision for a lender to make after playing a significant role in shredding the figure before evaluating it. My income is also XXXX higher now than it was when I originally qualified to both refinance and open a HELOC in XXXX. It is approximately XXXX higher now than it was when they approved a forbearance in XXXX. But now my income is no longer a \"sufficient amount\"? More importantly, a deferment was not even included among the list of loss mitigation options I was considered for despite my request in my application and repeated assurances from SchoolsFirst. Attachment 14 is just one of many emails Ive sent to SchoolsFirst about a deferral and attachment 15 is a screenshot from SchoolsFirst's website that unequivocally states that you can defer payments after the forbearance period. Denied any assistance, my only option now was to pay the full amount in one lump sum.\n\nTaking a comprehensive accounting of my loan has been a nearly impossible task since I do not have access to my full mortgage payment history. I am no longer sent monthly paper statements, and my website access and app access to all past and current statements have been blocked by SchoolsFirst due to my \"account status\" (see attachment 16). SchoolsFirst states that you can have 24/7 access to your loan and updates regarding your loss mitigation requests online at loansolutioncenter.com. That is yet another lie (see attachment 16). Whatever numbers I have been able to retrieve are extremely unclear and inconsistent. Lack of access and equivocal information is problematic since throughout this time I have had the financial ability to resume my monthly payment, and I have made multiple attempts to make those payments. Despite these attempts, my payment history appears hit-or-miss as SchoolsFirst has either accepted or refused my payments at-random. There were several months where I was prohibited from making a payment because I was told that it was considered a \"partial payment\" and they would \"not accept anything less than the full amount of the delinquency\". One representative stated that they would not accept the payment because \"it was not going to cure the delinquency\". Of course neither were my interest-only HELOC payments (that were secured by the same collateral), and they've had no problem regularly removing that payment from my account every month.\n\nWhen my payments were accepted, I breathed a sigh of relief and did not realize at the time that I should scrutinize where my payments were going after I'd been provided confirmation of receipt. So when I went through my escrow transactions, one of the few things related to my mortgage that I still have unrestricted access to (see attachment 17), I was shocked and confused at how irregular my payments had been applied and whether or not they even had. I compared the escrow transactions to the loan statements I had and noticed that several payments were misapplied, not applied when received, or not applied at all. Several of my payments did not move forward my delinquency date, making it appear as though I am even further behind than I actually am. Monthly late fees and \"property preservation\" fees have accumulated regardless of whether or not I'd made a payment (see attachment 19). On several instances, Schools First refused payment until the payment was past due, which resulted in assessing frivolous late fees (see attachments 18 and 19). Some months my payments were even shown as being accepted but then \"refunded\", subsequently accruing more late fees. In reality those \"refunded\" payments were never actually reimbursed to my account. I went through and compared every bank statement from the past two years and noticed that there were several instances where I had received emails indicating to me that my payment had been accepted, in spite of whether or not that was even true. In XXXX XXXX for example, I received three separate emails from SchoolsFirst that thanked me for making three individual mortgage payments. Despite having not authorized all three of these payments, my bank account at the time indicated that my account had been debited for them. These payments are still shown on my loan statements and escrow transactions, yet not one of those payments were ever applied towards reducing the loan, and the withdrawals from my bank account are no longer reflected in the transaction history. Meanwhile, an XXXX XXXX mortgage statement indicated that a full periodic payment was fully applied to my negative escrow balance. Yet according to my bank statements, no such amount ever even left my bank account at that time! In fact my bank statements show several mortgage payments which resulted in an actual decrease of my total available account balance, but my loan statements do not accurately account for each of those payments. The money in my  \"Unapplied Funds\" account seems to appear out of nowhere and disappear just as quickly. I've recently found the most success in being allowed to make a payment by going into an actual branch, and I recently discovered that they would print my past statements for me at my request. Yet even when paying inside of an actual branch, my payments are still not accounted for appropriately nor are they applied upon receipt, and the transactions do not make any sense even to SchoolsFirst! The manager at the nearest SchoolsFirst branch can't explain any of this. I know because I have sat down with her and she has tried. In addition to this, I have also attempted to address the discrepancies with them in detail via telephone and email, and the issue continues to be either ignored or dismissed (See attachments 20 and 21). The most recent time I brought this up, I was told that Loss Mitigation had attempted to call me three times on one particular day (along with leaving a message for me). According to my cell phone records, this is simply not true. \n\nAs a result of this apparent book cooking, Ive made several attempts to request an itemized accounting of my loan and a full payment history beginning with the date of delinquency. In addition to the previously mentioned ignored Qualified Written Requests, I also attempted to contact the lawyer/trustee that had been assigned to my loan. Their phone number led to an automated recording which instructed me to contact them via email. I attempted to email and was charged XXXX for an emailed response of a payoff statement that was neither itemized, nor accurate, in spite of that being the specific point of my request (see attachments 22 and 23) However that statement stated \"For itemization please call XXXX. So I did this, and I was connected to an automated recording stating that Id reached XXXX XXXX XXXX, although I do not bank there nor hold a loan with that credit union. The man who answered claimed to be from \"Schools Credit Union\", claimed to have never heard of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and had no idea what I meant when I asked for a simple itemization. The man had the audacity to ask me if I was calling the correct number and ultimately stated that he would forward the request to the attorney assigned to my loan. I was then charged another XXXX to be sent another emailed statement that was again neither itemized nor accurate, and like the statement before, it said \"For itemization please call XXXX\" (See attachment 24). \n\nBy letter and by email I've submitted a Request To Know under the California Consumer Privacy Act, and in response they denied my inquiry for my own personal information and they stated that they were unwilling to complete my request. SchoolsFirst simply refuses to provide accurate and timely information regarding my loan or anything at all for that matter! Whether it's regarding my own personal information, or the total amount I owe, to who actually owns and/or services my loan, to when exactly (and if) my home has a sale date, or who to contact regarding any of this information. One payoff statement I received directed me to send payment to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX (See attachment 25), so even who to pay is questionable! My purported monthly mortgage payment changes from one document to the next as well. The amount that they provided to the IRS on my 1098 was a different amount than the one shown on my loan statements. So they do not report accurate information to the IRS (in addition to the wrong mortgage payment on two 1098s, they also reported inaccurate amounts regarding what I have paid to them and what they have refunded to me). In XXXX  and XXXX  they reported that they had paid out money from my escrow in order to refund several of my periodic payments. While I did receive those checks, I did not cash them. However that money was still reported as being removed from my escrow account. I had asked to have those checks reissued and instead, according to my loan statements, it appears as though that money was applied towards my loan, (where it was sent by me in the first place several months prior). I can only assume that this is what happened since according to my loan statements- money was applied to my loan, and it was money that did not come from out of my bank account at the time. I was told however, that the checks \"were reissued\" to me. I never received a reissue of these checks. \n\nThey also do not report accurate information to any of the credit bureaus. Their incorrect reporting played a significant role in the status of my alleged past due balance and the debt to income ratio that SchoolsFirst used to justify their determination to deny my request for a loan modification. Specifically, their denial letter stated \"The consumer reporting agency contacted that provided information that influenced our decision in whole or in part was XXXX XXXX.\" So I requested the report from that agency and according to that report, my loan has had no payments made since XXXX  of XXXX, (see attachment 26) despite the fact that I have made more than 15 payments since then according to my escrow balance sheet (see attachment 17 highlights).\n\nShortly after receiving the denial letter, I had gotten into contact with  a \"Loss Mitigation Specialist\" from the Real Estate Servicing Department, after emailing and then calling their department in a desperate attempt to find anybody willing to help me. I attempted to explain everything that had led up to this point, and was initially hopeful and relieved to not have to continue communicating with SchoolsFirst's unhelpful call center. I was encouraged to submit an appeal to the denial, and to \"trust the process\". I did so, and on XXXX XXXX I learned I'd been approved for a repayment plan. Fortunately by now I'd had the wherewithal to know better than to rely on their mailed correspondence, and only through my own relentless calling was I able to retrieve this information in a timely manner. Left to SchoolsFirst's mailings, I received the letter with the details of this repayment plan on XXXX XXXX, two days after I was required to communicate my intent, and a full day after I was expected to have made a down payment of an amount that wasnt even possible for me to make.\n\nThe plan was scheduled to begin on XXXX XXXX and the first payment required was a down-payment of XXXX (see attachment 27), just shy of 17 months worth of payments. On top of this, the repayment plan indicated that my mortgage payment would nearly double for the next two years. While I have a sizable down payment saved because of the gaps in time where they refused to take my payments, XXXX  was an amount they knew I would not have even if I had completely cleared out every cent I had. SchoolsFirst knew precisely what I had and did not have, after I had been forced to send in multiple applications, Financial Forms, bank statements, paystubs, tax returns, w-2s, mortgage statements, hardship letters, letters of employment, and even my divorce decree. Not to mention I had also discussed all of this again with my contact in the Real Estate Department as she easily reviewed my accounts from her side seeing as how my lender is also my bank.\n\nEven if I could've somehow procured XXXX in that short amount of time (they couldn't even deliver their letter requesting the payment within the amount of time they were expecting me to furnish that amount!), they were asking me to completely drain everything I had in my checking and savings combined, and then hike up my total mortgage payment to nearly 60% of my take home pay- to repay an amount that was more than what I ever even owed to them! The \"total amount due\" in the repayment plan once again was not accurate, nor was it consistent with itself or any other document. It stated that the total past due amount was XXXX, yet when I did the math the total amount it had me paying back throughout the life of the repayment plan was XXXX. Why would I have to pay back a different number than the indicated \"total past due amount\"? If what I owe is actually XXXX, why wouldn't it just state that number instead? (see attachment 27) Meanwhile the loan statement for that month stated the total past due amount was XXXX  with a XXXX amount due, and the reinstatement document I received stated the total to reinstate was both XXXX and XXXX! (See attachment 28). \n\nThe repayment plan indicated that I had the option to either accept or refuse these terms by XXXX XXXX  (see attachment 29) or appeal one final time by XXXX XXXX (see attachment 30). I called and spoke with an agent to discuss and confirm my right to appeal (see attachment 31). Not one to be","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-17T16:20:05.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"91786","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6711637","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2023-03-17T15:40:50.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["By letter and by email I've submitted a Request To Know <em>under</em> the California Consumer Privacy Act, and in <em>response</em> they denied my inquiry for my own personal information and they stated that they were unwilling to complete my request. SchoolsFirst simply refuses to provide accurate and timely information regarding my loan or anything at all for that <em>matter</em>!"]},"sort":[9.554297,"6711637"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9419515","_score":9.457993,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I opened a complaint stating the following : Submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX A nefarious scheme, masterminded by XXXX XXXX, came to light in New York real estate, leaving behind a trail of deceit and financial ruin. His fraudulent tactics targeted vulnerable individuals, utilizing the reputable Bank of America as an unwitting accomplice. The initial warning signs of XXXX 's fraudulent activities surfaced on XX/XX/XXXX, when his legal representative, XXXX XXXX, formally asserted possession of {>= $1,000,000} in his escrow account for supposed \" real estate transactions. '' This, however, proved to be a fabrication, as the funds were employed to evade taxes and conceal assets amidst ongoing legal proceedings. The deception continued on XX/XX/XXXX, when XXXX reaffirmed a substantial {$930000.00} in the same escrow account. The audacious charade began to unravel in early XXXX when a XXXX contractor alerted XXXX to the dubious activities of another contractor, XXXX XXXX. Upon further investigation, XXXX unveiled XXXX 's criminal record and involvement in illicit dealings under \" XXXX XXXX, XXXX, '' a brokerage owned by XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX instructed XXXX to transmit a fabricated Proof of Funds ( POF ) to secure a property in his name. He presented a spurious bank statement containing fraudulent account balances to mislead sellers into believing the company possessed sufficient funds for the transaction. The deceptive practices extended beyond this point. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX furnished a \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' contractor with a counterfeit screenshot displaying over {$900000.00} in a XXXX accountfunds that were non-existent. Subsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX directed XXXX to fabricate documents from Bank of America, asserting that \" XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX '' maintained an account holding in excess of {$800000.00}. These digitally manipulated documents created a false impression of financial stability, deceiving property owners. By XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Bank closed all \" XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX '' accounts due to suspicious activities associated with XXXX. Interestingly, XXXX 's personal and other business accounts remained unaffected, underscoring the isolated nature of XXXX 's fraudulent activities. The pivotal moment arrived on XX/XX/XXXX, as XXXX filed a police report at XXXX XXXX, document number XXXX, and lodged a formal complaint with the XXXX XXXX. The Financial Frauds Bureau promptly assigned him a paralegal, marking the inception of a comprehensive investigation. Subsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America 's legal department became involved. A mere two weeks later, on XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America confirmed that no account had ever been established under \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX '' or its associated XXXX. Despite numerous alerts regarding the ongoing fraud, Bank of America 's response was belated. XXXX continued his operations, exploiting the business bank accounts at Bank of America to defraud not only the bank but also its customers and the populace at large. The saga of XXXX XXXX serves as a sobering reminder of the depths of deceit prevalent in the real estate domain, preying upon the most susceptible segments of society. However, justice eventually caught up with XXXX and his cohorts, who faced severe and fitting legal repercussions for their actions. Key People XXXX XXXX ( aliases : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ) Home Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX SSN : XXXX Phone number : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX XXXX : XXXX Phone number : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX : XXXX Phone number : ( XXXX ) XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX BofA Company responded : Company 's Response *Our records show : You previously maintained a BofA Core Checking account ending XXXX and a Regular Savings account ending XXXX at Bank of America. On XX/XX/XXXX, you made an Automated Teller Machine ( ATM ) Starter Check deposit at a Bank of America ATM for {$1100.00}. Bank records show a Return Item Chargeback in the amount of {$1100.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. This means that the funds were debited from your checking account. The funds were returned unpaid because the deposited item was returned as irregular signature. We made the decision to end your deposit relationship with us, and the letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, were previously mailed to you to the address on record to inform you of this decision. This letter provided you with details about the restrictions that may be placed on the account during the account closure process and advised you that we may report our closure decision to consumer reporting agencies such as XXXX , XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The relationship between a bank and the client is a contractual one, and under the terms of the Deposit Agreement and Disclosures publication ( the Agreement ), we have no obligation to disclose our reasons for closing the account. Please refer to the section titled Account Closures, Transaction Delays and Conversions/Changes to Account Settings in the Agreement for more information. The Agreement is available to all clients on our website at bankofamerica.com/deposits/resources/deposit-agreements.go. Based on our review, we have not identified a bank error in the management of your account. We have maintained your account in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, which form part of the contract between the bank and our clients. We have confirmed that as of the date of this letter, the accounts are not reporting to XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The enclosed correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, was sent to you to advise these accounts are not being reported on your file. During a XX/XX/XXXX, phone conversation with you, I advised you may apply for a deposit account however, if the bank inadvertently allows new deposit accounts to be opened, please understand that they may be closed at any time and without warning. Further, we discussed Bank of America is unable to address your concerns related to any other servicers, as some of the information included in your inquiry does not pertain to Bank of America. Please understand that Bank of America is unable to comment on any actions or communications by unaffiliated third parties. In addition, please know that we are unable to address concerns regarding clients or clients accounts that you are not authorized on. At Bank of America we pride ourselves in the diversity of our clients and employees, and we take claims of discrimination very seriously. Bank of America is committed to non-discrimination, diversity and diversity education. Based on our review of this matter, we have found no indication that discrimination was involved in this matter I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. At Bank of America, we make every effort to exceed our clients expectations on a daily basis. I regret that you have been dissatisfied. Please know that your feedback is valuable and has been retained to ensure we are providing the level of service our clients expect and deserve. \n\n\n\n-- - I fail to see how the response is related to the complaint. The response indicates that Bank of America is involved in the scheme I mentioned in my complaint. There is no connection between what I complained about and the response received. This shows that the BoA team did not take my complaint seriously and is trying to cover up the situation to retain a high-net-worth client who has acquired their wealth by scamming innocent people. This is evidence that the Bank of America does not put their customers first, does not prioritize safety and security of the consumer and most importantly priorities their financial gain more than the protection of innocent people.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-03T21:32:24.000Z","issue":"Opening an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"11222","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9419515","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-03T21:15:07.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Unable to open an account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A mere two weeks later, on XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America confirmed that no account had ever been established <em>under</em> \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX '' or its associated XXXX. Despite numerous alerts regarding the ongoing fraud, Bank of America 's <em>response</em> was belated. XXXX continued his operations, exploiting the business bank accounts at Bank of America to defraud not <em>only</em> the bank but also its customers and the populace at large."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.457993,"9419515"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13661018","_score":9.448481,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is being submitted based on concern that Mr. Cooper, a brand for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is likely in violation of consumer protection regulations and possibly other lending laws by implementing new conditions on existing loans and refusing to provide adequate support or representation from the company for issue resolution. This complaint is two-fold. The first is to resolve our immediate issue on the property owned by my husband and me. The second reason is to ask a watchdog group to investigate to ensure abuses aren't happening in a more widespread fashion. \n\nWe allege Mr. Cooper, a brand for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, a mortgage services company, is generally unreachable and unresponsive. They have shown a pattern of providing inaccurate and inconsistent communication. Short of rendering a legal opinion, Mr. Cooper has demonstrated possible misconduct, incompetence, and/or negligence as our mortgage services provider. \n\nShortly after Mr. Cooper acquired our property loan in XXXX, the company attempted to change the loan requirements without providing a legal basis, or even a consistent basis for introducing new terms. \nMr. Cooper refuses to provide any reasonable or timely means to discuss or appeal their actions. \nSummary of complaints that will be supported in the transaction detail : 1. Mr. Cooper knowingly and admittedly sent false communication multiple times regarding the flood zone status of our property and has tried to enforce unwarranted new loan requirements more than once based on a pre-existing designation.\n\n2. Mr. Cooper provides no reasonable means to have any form of dialogue despite the appearan\nce of a multitude of customer support options.\n\n3. Mr. Cooper designs customer support solutions that only benefit them by automating one-way, static information while leaving no relevant option for actual representation or dialogue to occur. The phone system will acknowledge a callers requests to speak with someone, but will still loop the caller back into limiting, menu-driven choices. This is also true of their website chat feature. Email addresses for support have either been returned as undeliverable, or result in nothing more than an automated response or rejection of submission. \n4. As such, we allege that Mr. Cooper actually does not provide any common and reasonable methods ( phone, email or live chat ) for reaching a live support representative. They provide no effective dispute resolution channel. Even a ticket submission option via the Mr. Cooper portal triggered a response that altered the status to read only, disabling further replies.\n\n5. In closing, Mr. Cooper is in a position of control over a large investment, ones home. There is a feeling of helplessness when there is no effective means to communicate or resolve issues with the company. Our history of transactions that follows will show Mr. Cooper has a pattern of misconduct and provides customers no method of recourse by obfuscating the process of connecting with a customer support agent. Mr. Cooper would make it appear there are many methods for contacting a representative, but each is a proverbial black hole, engineered to provide automated responses and efficiency only to Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper uses various and inconsistent means for communicating account changes or updates, some of which do not offer a notification but require a proactive search by the client to stumble across the update. ( i.e. A miscellaneous folder buried in a statements tab in an account portal vs. using the portals message inbox, or an email, etc. ). According to the internet, the inability to interact meaningfully or with an actual representative is not a unique problem to us. \n\nPersonal transaction overview : Multiple times Mr. Cooper has erroneously communicated the XXXX flood zone designation of our XXXX XXXX property at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. The first time was in or around XX/XX/XXXX. Mr. Cooper has used an XXXX status change as a basis for requiring flood insurance in multiple communications, all of which threaten to force-write a policy. ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ). Within or in proximity to the same timeframe and usually in response to us disproving this, Mr. Cooper has in XXXX instances claimed that flood insurance was actually being required instead for a XXXX ( XXXX ) designation. Our history will also show XXXX time Mr. Cooper agreed they have no basis for requiring flood insurance, but XXXX months later started the cycle of requiring it again. \nXXXX. Per XXXX mapping, there has been NO designation area change for the property since the time of loan origination in XXXX of XXXX. It was ( and remains ) in XXXX XXXX XXXX and in a pre-existing XXXX zone. The loan did not require flood insurance for either reason at origination or for the XXXX years prior to Mr. Cooper acquiring it. There has been no known change to law that would require or even support Mr. Cooper forcing this change. \nPer our transaction record, you will find that Mr. Cooper does not provide a legal basis or explanation for changing the terms of the loan. \nYou will see that they have purchased and cancelled LPI ( Lender provided insurance ) on the same day, XX/XX/XXXX. You will find they have increased the escrow payment required by {$1200.00} although the force-written policy was cancelled the same day it was acquired. Interestingly, we received the policy by mail. The cancellation notice is only in the miscellaneous tab of our statements and was not received via mail as the policy was. This leads me to wonder if they expected we would not find the cancellation and continue paying the higher monthly escrow in the absence of a policy? Would they still be charging this if we had not sent complaints and a ticket? ( all unanswered ) You will find numerous other errors made by Mr. Cooper and a refusal to provide standard customer support options. Whether requests, demands or eventual threats, Mr. Cooper does not offer any method that would support a dialogue. This leaves the property owner in limbo as to whether or not their requests for review or support ever reach a person. \n\nThe following is a chronological account of our transactions to date with Mr. Cooper. We can provide full documentation and screenshots to support our claims. \nXXXX. Mr. Cooper acquired our mortgage loan in XXXX which was originated by XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for the property we own in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n2. We have remained in good standing with this loan and abided by all terms associated with the loan since origination regardless of mortgage service provider changes.\n\n3. Upon origination of the loan and according to the loan terms we signed, there was no flood insurance coverage required and there has been no change to any designated area or flood zone associated with the property. \nXXXX. Our first statement from Mr. Cooper was for XX/XX/XXXX. As early as XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. Cooper sent a letter informing us that flood insurance was now required per XXXX guidelines due to a change in the XXXX flood zone designation to XXXX XXXX \no This was patently false and disproved after much time and effort. This was the start of many inaccurate communications we have received and have had to disprove while under duress due to the threat of force-written policies within specific timeframes. \nXXXX. Although we had tried many times, in both XXXX of XXXX and XXXX XXXX, we were able to invest the XXXX minutes of effort both times to successfully circumvent XXXX XXXX automated customer service menu which discouraged reaching a representative. \no The first representative initially defended the XXXX  claim, but then changed her stance to say flood insurance was required, not because of a XXXX flood zone designation, but instead due to the XXXX designation ( which is also referred to as XXXX ). \no There has been NO change in XXXX designation from the time of our loan in XX/XX/XXXX with Renasant to the time Mr. Cooper acquired the loan from XXXX. We were intentional to ask, and confirmed at loan origination, that flood insurance was not required. It was not. \no Further we were initially told by Mr. Cooper that XXXX required the insurance and then were told it was XXXX XXXX and XXXX, both of which we proved to be inaccurate. \no Upon stating we would pursue a legal route while speaking with the second representative, XXXX, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, she empathized with us. She stated that Mr. Cooper intentionally makes it difficult to speak with someone and she hated the practice. She stated our appeal was not necessary as a letter from Mr. Cooper had already been sent to us detailing no need for flood insurance. I documented this at the time. \nXXXX. By XXXX XXXX, XXXX, we still had not seen the referenced letter so we emailed the only active XXXX XXXX email address provided, which is intended for insurance documents. ( It is important to note there was another email address offered in XXXX letter, but it was promptly returned as inactive. This shows the pattern of limiting customer outreach and support ). \no We outlined the above information, along with a list of grievances concerning the experience of trying to appeal and resolve this matter. \no We subsequently received a letter on XXXX XXXX, XXXX stating that Mr. Cooper had received proof of flood insurance and that there would be no additional charge to our account. \no This was patently false as we did not obtain flood insurance. Given the number of inaccuracies experienced by then, we assumed this was how they documented things in their system to allow for resolution of this matter. \nXXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, we received an updated letter from Mr. Cooper stating a review of our loan indicated flood insurance was required for the property due to being in a XXXX. \no XXXX, this was and is not a new designation for the property. It existed at loan origination 5 years prior. The property was also built in XXXX and the designation was in XXXX, precluding it from qualifying for XXXX flood insurance. \no There had not been any change to the XXXX or XXXX designation of the property since the time of loan origination. Requiring flood insurance represents a new loan requirement with no basis for doing so. \no Immediately we attempted to reach a representative at Mr. Cooper via the customer service numbers found on previous communications and via XXXX searches as there was only a link to upload documents or email documents provided in the letter. \no As the previous numbers were stuck in an endless loop of irrelevant menu options, we began internet searches for a way to reach a representative at Mr. Cooper. That search resulted in discovering a litany of complaints about a lack of representation from this company. Sources include XXXX and XXXX. \no We began to document attempts to communicate, including the menu options presented via their customer support line. \no The menu options are informational and support only one-way communication despite at times stating, \" I understand you'd like to speak to an agent.... '' o As an example, the process of attempting to reach someone on XXXX XXXX, XXXX started at XXXX and ended at XXXX after numerous menu options failed to provide a relevant choice or access to a representative. \no XXXX also attempted using the website chat feature for support on XXXX XXXX, XXXX as well. This was attempted from XXXX to XXXX and then abandoned when the familiar endless loop of menu options was presented electronically. \no Lastly, we emailed our history of communication and documented facts to the email address designated for providing insurance documentation. \nXXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, with no response, we repeated the attempts to reach someone via phone to discuss the matter and to understand the legal basis for the requirement of flood insurance. After a prolonged period of not reaching an agent, we abandoned this effort. \nXXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we once again received a letter stating flood insurance was required. This letter alleged that the flood zone designation had changed and we were in a SFHA with flood zone V, requiring flood insurance. \nXXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a second and final notice stating Map Panel Number XXXX Flood XXXX XXXX required flood insurance and that Mr. Cooper had secured temporary XXXX lapse insurance. We were given 15 days to dispute by having the map amended by XXXX. However, the XXXX map when properly sized didnt need to be amended. XXXX and our countys flood zone XXXX both showed the flood zone to be XXXX  with no changes since XXXX. \nXXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX we gathered all the supporting documentation again to prove no change to the flood zone and flood zone XXXX. We emailed the address intended for insurance documents to state again our appeal of the XXXX zone XXXX designation. We had already disputed the XXXX and XXXX XXXX insurance requirements and shown where the property does not qualify for NFIP based XXXX the designation of CBRS per XXXX and XXXX the designation for that area pre-dated our loan with already agreed upon conditions that did not include flood insurance! \nXXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, in an inconsistent fashion, we received electronic communication via a miscellaneous tab in the account portal on our statements page ( vs. portal inbox, or a phone call or email despite demands to speak with an agent ). This communication seemed intentionally hidden. It acknowledged our XX/XX/XXXX complaint sent to the insurance documents email. Mr. Cooper asked for time to investigate through XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX via email, we received a communication titled \" resolution ''. Upon opening the email, we were surprised to discover it was a resolution for a matter relating to a loan that was not our loan. The communication included details for this individuals loan on a property in XXXX XXXX \nXXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, communication was received from Mr. Cooper electronically, and later via mail, that stated several things. \no This letter hoped to alleviate our concerns. \no The letter stated that the XXXX letter stating XXXX flood zone XXXX  was sent in error as their lender provided insurance system didnt support XXXX  reasoning. \nXXXX. This can not be considered a simple mistake given the number of times we received letters stating the property was in an XXXX  flood zone that changed. We pursued documentation to disprove at our expense of time and effort, all under the duress of an impending timeline, more than once! \no The letter stated they agreed with our documentation concerning the flood zone designation and as such, this was not a basis for requiring flood insurance. \no The letter stated that effective XX/XX/XXXX, flood insurance would be required for properties in a XXXX XXXX, but failed to provide any legal basis for this allegation. It was just stated as a matter of their policy to secure their interest in the loan. \no The letter addressed a typo made by me in the XX/XX/XXXX communication concerning the exorbitantly high XXXX premium. \no The letter stated that XXXX had not been obtained and to avoid this, we must provide proof of insurance. No timeline was provided. Since they asked to research our complaint through XX/XX/XXXX, it seemed reasonable wed have time to find a way to address. \no The letter appeared to come from a XXXX XXXX and listed a phone number with a XXXX area code, but was sent from an unmonitored email address. \nXXXX. Less than XXXX hours later, on XX/XX/XXXX, communication was received from Mr. Cooper and later via mail that XXXX insurance was force-written on our loan. Per the policy it was obtained for being in XXXX XXXX XXXX, not due to being in a XXXX zone. This policy was also cancelled on the same day. Despite the policy cancellation, Mr. Cooper increased our XX/XX/XXXX payment from {$1500.00} to {$2700.00} for an escrow shortfall that shouldnt exist since there is no policy and was no policy for any appreciable amount of time. \no In the time since, we have called the XXXX area code phone number and left voicemail multiple times. All calls have gone unanswered. No return calls have been received. \no We have emailed the address for insurance documentation with our latest appeals and then threats to pursue legal action and to file complaints. All have been unanswered. \no We have provided all our documentation about flood zone status to our XXXX XXXX as they have indicated other residents have had requests for help with Mr. Cooper. \no We have spoken to our insurance agent who agrees that based on the facts, there is no basis for a flood insurance policy. \no Before we even mentioned who our mortgage services provider was, our insurance agent asked if this was Mr. Cooper based on their experience having to assist in these instances, indicating a business practice vs. isolated incident. \no Our insurance agent also contacted Mr. Cooper on our behalf to try to remedy the issues. \no XXXX XX/XX/XXXX we opened a ticket via the portal to dispute the increased XX/XX/XXXX payment which elicited an automated response to give Mr. Cooper 7 days to investigate. The response then closed the dialogue box to disallow further communication. \no XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX, we have not been presented with any opportunity to have a dialogue with Mr. Cooper. XXXX received no status update. XXXX received no evidence of a legal basis for requiring flood insurance. XXXX received no dispute resolution over flood insurance. XXXX received no resolution to the increased XX/XX/XXXX payment. XXXX received nothing to indicate Mr. Cooper takes any accountability for any of the errors that have been made or will act in good faith to prove they have a legal right to institute new conditions on an existing loan. \no We have no confidence in communication we receive from Mr. Cooper related to this matter. We fear the extent and the scope of the demonstrated incompetence and possible misconduct Mr. Cooper could have on our credit and finances. We fear for other individuals who XXXX be bullied into compliance. We fear that without the ability to access support, individuals could have irreparable harm done to their credit, finances, or even lose their property.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-22T22:12:45.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"37027","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13661018","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-22T20:58:41.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["o The letter stated that the XXXX letter stating XXXX flood zone XXXX  was sent in <em>error</em> as their lender provided insurance system didnt support XXXX  reasoning. \nXXXX. This can not be considered a simple mistake given the number of times we received <em>letters</em> stating the property was in an XXXX  flood zone that changed. We pursued documentation to disprove at our expense of time and effort, all <em>under</em> the duress of an impending timeline, more than once!"]},"sort":[9.448481,"13661018"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10486998","_score":9.300025,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Re : NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE ; Formal Demand for Full Account Disclosure and Ledger Transparency, Certified Verification of Alleged Debt, Cease and Desist Any and All Consumer Reporting in Perpetuity of the Inaccuracy and Incompleteness of Account Ending : XXXX to Any and All Consumer Reporting Agencies Dear Sir/Madam : I write to you with grave concern regarding the continued and deliberate failure of Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to address the serious matters I have raised in previous correspondence. XXXX  silence and refusal to engage with these substantive issues constitute a breach of good faith, trust and transparency, fundamental principles that should guide any reputable financial institution. \n\nDespite my repeated demands, XXXX has failed to provide a true and accurate bill, nor has XXXX disclosed the full journal, XXXX, double-entry bookkeeping of the general account ledger or provided the XXXX  number ( s ) associated with the account. As the master beneficiary and registered owner of this account, I have an unequivocal right to inspect the demanded records, including all underlying accounting information, to verify that the financial statements and ledgers related to my account are accurate, balanced, and free from errors or discrepancies. It is deeply troubling that this lawful demand continues to be ignored, raising serious questions about XXXX  commitment to transparency. \n\nInstead of complying with these reasonable and lawful demands, XXXX has persisted in sending generic, computer-generated stall letters that provide no meaningful response. I must ask : why does XXXX consistently refuse to have a qualified individuala man or woman who can swear under oath or by affidavit under penalty of perjurycertify that there is a legitimate debt owed on this account, along with substantiating documentation of the balance claimed to be due? The lack of an appropriate response raises significant concerns about whether XXXX is acting with transparency and integrity, or whether it is, in fact, engaged in conduct designed to deceive. \n\nXXXX  continued failure to provide the demanded records, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) and pursuant to U.C.C. 9-210, suggests either a deliberate refusal to comply or an inability to substantiate the claims being made against me. This lack of transparency and apparent unwillingness to act in good faith strongly suggests malicious intent and fraud by deception. \n\nLet this letter serve as formal notice that if XXXX continues to act in dishonor and refuses to provide the full records and entries of accounting, along with XXXX  number ( XXXX ) as demanded, certified and signed under seal by an authorized agent or representative, under penalty of perjury, I will have no choice but to pursue all available legal remedies which will compel XXXX to produce said documents and proof of claim in a court of law. XXXX  refusal to provide these documents and to engage in transparent, good faith dealings has caused, and continues to cause me significant harm, injury and damages. I will not hesitate to hold XXXX  accountable in a court of law and seek redress. \n\nFurthermore, in response to XXXX  recent communication via XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX concerning the alleged debt associated with the above-referenced account XXXX  claims to have in fact, confirmed to be validated with absolutely no verifiable evidence or proof to substantiate XXXX  position or claim. I would like to formally dispute the validity of the alleged debt and XXXX  use of billing statements as sufficient evidence of the alleged amount claimed to be owed. \n\nIt has been well-established in numerous court decisions that mere credit card billing statements do not constitute valid or sufficient evidence of a debt owed. In particular, courts have ruled that billing statements alone fail to meet the burden of proof required to substantiate the existence or amount of a debt. The following cases support this position : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : The XXXX  Supreme Court held that credit card billing statements alone were insufficient to prove a debt. The court emphasized the need for the creditor to present a signed credit agreement or evidence of the underlying contract. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : The court ruled that billing statements were not enough to establish a valid debt, especially without a signed contract or other evidence proving that the defendant had agreed to the terms of the debt. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : The court found that credit card statements were insufficient to prove a debt existed without documentation showing the defendants consent to the credit agreement. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : This case reaffirmed that billing statements without further documentation, such as a signed agreement, are inadequate to establish the validity of a debt claim. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : The court ruled that credit card billing statements alone did not establish the terms of the credit agreement or the debtors responsibility to pay under those terms. \nGiven the legal precedent established in the above cases, I respectfully demand that XXXX provide valid and sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged debt, including but not limited to : A copy of the original signed credit agreement, and certified documentation of the proof of funds that created the money/credit on account ( credit/trade line ) . \nCertified documentation showing a lawful binding contract between both parties with certified authorization and wet ink signatures of the parties agreeing to the terms and conditions governing the account. \nCertified documentation of the XXXX  number ( XXXX ) associated with the account ending in XXXX. \nThe 1099-OID that confirms XXXX  to be the original issuer of the funds and/or credit and me to be the recipient of the funds and/or credit. \nThe 1099-C or any other tax forms, that XXXX has reported, or is failing to report the account as a charge-off but not reporting the taxes to the Internal Revenue Service of the interest and income XXXX  is collecting. \nAny and all UCC-1, UCC-3 filings confirming who the Debtor and who the Secured Party are in the matter of the account in question.\n\nAny and all documents by and between XXXX and the Federal Reserve Discount Window for any and all application ( s ) for notes in accordance with Federal Reserve Act Section 16 ( 2 ) - Application for notes by Federal Reserve banks pertaining to the account in question.\n\nCertified documentation in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) and pursuant to U.C.C. 9-210 of the journal, T-balance, double-entry bookkeeping records of the general accounting ledger ( s ) showing all records and evidence of accounts payable, accounts receivables, debit and credit entries.\n\nPlease note that I am asserting my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and other applicable laws, which require that you cease any and all collection and reporting activities until such evidence is provided.\n\nWith that in mind, I also want to point out that the consumer information ( trade line ) being reported by XXXX as the responsible data furnisher to the Consumer Reporting Agencies is not being accurately reported and is causing me harm, damage and injury by not being able to acquire goods and services needed for personal, family and household use/purposes. Upon WCFs abrupt and unwarranted closure of the account ( trade line ), the now closed account ( trade line ) is still reporting an alleged remaining balance of {$6800.00} that XXXX Charged-Off and is being adversely reported on my credit report as a Charged-Off account. \n\nAs you are aware, XXXX, as well as all other businesses lawfully acting in commerce utilizes the IRS form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt for the remaining debt obligation not recovered from defaulted credit cards. From speaking with both Certified Public Accountants and the IRS directly, regarding tax obligations, such an IRS form is then reported as INCOME and not as a DEBT on a consumer 's tax filing requirements. While the business can cancel/write-off the account receivable as a BAD DEBT and receive a tax deduction as mentioned in the IRS Topic 453. \n\nThis current issue of XXXX  furnishing this inaccurate information on my consumer credit report is clearly not only going against the rules of construction in the area of exclusions per 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ), ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) of reports containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. This inaccurate information as to what the IRS Publication 4681 defines as Income and not Debt is being furnished to third party data furnishers as well. \n\nPerhaps this is a small oversight that XXXX is not aware of and can address quickly at no cost by submitting a request to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc to remove this inaccurate derogatory account from my credit profile since the DEBT has been canceled and reported as INCOME as well as to stop the current harm, injury and damage so that I can continue to prosper in my journey of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, the fundamentally protected rights guarded and guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and Constitutions Bill of Rights, the bedrock and cornerstones of this great nation. \n\nIf for some reason, this is not the correct understanding of the exclusions part in the construction of a consumers credit report with accurate information and the correct IRS reporting of a Debt charged-off and reported as Income, I would appreciate XXXX letting me know, with accurate supporting details, so that I can be a better informed consumer and honest taxpayer. \n\nFurthermore, upon the transfer and securitization of the credit card receivables ( asset-backed security ), the issuer, XXXX ceases to be the holder in due course, relinquishing its legal standing to enforce payment from the account holder. This is because, through the securitization process, the issuer, XXXX, conveys and transfers its rights, titles, and interest in the accounts receivable to the trust or Special Purpose Vehicle ( SPV ), which now holds the legal claim to those assets. \n\nConsequently, any attempt by the issuer, XXXX, to enforce payment directly from the account holder would be unlawful and a misrepresentation, as the issuer, XXXX no longer possesses the accounts receivable ( asset-back security ) and has waived all of its rights associated with them upon their transfer. This transfer removes the issuers, XXXX, authority to claim or collect on the debt, rendering any further attempts to do so without proper legal standing. \n\nPlease be advised that, due to XXXX  failure to properly report the income associated with the charge-off of my account and XXXX  failure to issue a Form 1099-C, I will be forced to notify and instruct the IRS to conduct an audit of this account. It appears that XXXX has not fulfilled its obligation to report the cancellation of debt as income to both myself and the IRS, which has prevented me from appropriately accounting for the tax liability related to this unreported income. This lack of proper reporting is a serious matter, and I am taking steps to ensure that it is fully investigated and that all parties comply with their legal responsibilities regarding the accurate reporting of canceled debts. \n\nThis notice constitutes XXXX 's final opportunity to provide the demanded documentation within fifteen ( XXXX ) days of the date of this notice. Failure to comply will result in the immediate initiation of legal action. The preponderance of evidence indicating fraud and theft by deception, carried out with malicious intent to harm, damage, and injure, is now apparent. Should legal proceedings become necessary, this evidence will be presented as admissible proof of XXXX  actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-17T20:41:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10486998","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-10-17T20:31:22.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of complying with these reasonable and lawful demands, XXXX has persisted in sending generic, computer-generated stall <em>letters</em> that provide no meaningful <em>response</em>. I must ask : why does XXXX consistently refuse to have a qualified individuala man or woman who can swear <em>under</em> oath or by affidavit <em>under</em> penalty of perjurycertify that there is a legitimate debt owed on this account, along with substantiating documentation of the balance claimed to be due?"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.300025,"10486998"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17620260","_score":9.097897,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Willful Violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( Consumer Privacy Rights ), 1681b ( Permissible Purposes ), 1681e ( b ) ( Accuracy Procedures ), 1681i ( Investigations ), 1681n ( Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance ), 1681c-2 ( 605B Blocking Identity Theft Info ), 1681s-2 ( Furnisher Duties ) ; FDCPA 1692e ( False Representations ), 1692f ( Unfair Practices ), 1692g ( Validation ), 1692j ( Deceptive Forms ), 806 ( Harassment ), 807 ( Misleading Reporting ) ; GLBA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 6802 Unauthorized Disclosure ) ; TILA XXXX ( Timing of Payments ), XXXX ( Finance Charges ) ; XXXX  ( 18 U.S.C. 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693a ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; and 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( Mail Fraud ) Demand for Immediate Deletion, {$1000.00} Per Violation Statutory Damages, Punitive Damages, and Full Compensation To Whom It May Concern : This is my FINAL AND URGENT DEMAND for the IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT DELETION of the fraudulent XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy public record ( Filed : XX/XX/XXXX ; Reference Number : XXXX ; Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida, XXXX Division ), all XXXX associated unauthorized accounts, XXXX unauthorized inquiries, and any related derogatory marks from my credit file. Despite multiple prior disputes, Equifax has only partially complied by removing the public record but FAILED to delete the attached accounts ; Experian and TransUnion continue to report ALL fraudulent information. This constitutes WILLFUL, DELIBERATE, AND CRIMINAL NONCOMPLIANCE with XXXX  laws, perpetuating IDENTITY THEFT and violating my privacy rights. I am a VICTIM OF IDENTITY THEFT, FTC Identity Theft Report ( Number XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX ), both of which detail the fraudulent use of my personal information in this bankruptcy and accounts. \n\nYour continued reporting of this unverifiable, fraudulent data is an EGREGIOUS INFRINGEMENT ON MY PRIVACY under 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 4 ), which affirms the consumer 's right to privacy and sole discretion over what is deemed private. XXXX explicitly recognizes that consumers like me have the RIGHT TO DECIDE what personal financial matters are privateI DEEM ALL THIS INFORMATION PRIVATE AND DO NOT CONSENT TO ITS SHARING ON MY CREDIT REPORT. By reporting these items without my authorization, you have caused severe paranoia, emotional distress requiring medication, reputational harm, financial losses ( e.g., denied credit, higher interest rates ), and harassment from collection agenciesmaking you LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES under FCRA 1681n ( up to {$1000.00} per violation, plus actual and punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs ). \nFraudulent Items to Be DELETED IMMEDIATELY : Bankruptcy Public Record : XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), Filed : XX/XX/XXXX, Reference Number : XXXX, Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida ( XXXX Division ). The court has CONFIRMED in writing ( XX/XX/XXXX letter, attached ) that it \" does not transmit or initiate conveyance of data to credit reporting agencies, '' rendering this entirely UNVERIFIABLE and ILLEGITIMATE. \nAssociated Unauthorized Accounts ( All Tied to Fraudulent Bankruptcy XXXX Items ) : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized Inquiries ( All Resulting from Identity Theft XXXX Items ) : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX I DID NOT AUTHORIZE, CONSENT TO, OR BENEFIT FROM ANY OF THESE ITEMSI NEVER APPLIED FOR CREDIT WITH THESE COMPANIES, AND THIS IS CONFIRMED IDENTITY THEFT. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( Permissible Purposes ), you may ONLY furnish a consumer report with WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS from the consumer or a permissible purposeNEITHER EXISTS HERE, making your actions ILLEGAL IDENTITY THEFT FACILITATION under 18 U.S.C. 1028A ( Aggravated Identity Theft, punishable by up to XXXX  years imprisonment ). You shared my information with creditors without consent, criminally liable for aiding fraud. \nSpecific Violations Committed ( Willful and Negligent Noncompliance ) : FCRA 1681a ( 4 ) Privacy Rights Violation : Reporting private matters ( inquiries, accounts, bankruptcy ) without my consent infringes on my sole right to privacy, causing paranoia and medication needsliable for damages. \nFCRA 1681b ( f ) Impermissible Access : You obtained and reported my information under FALSE PRETENSES without certification or my written consent, violating XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ). \nFCRA 1681e ( b ) Accuracy Failure : Failed to follow reasonable procedures for maximum accuracy; reported unvalidated, fraudulent data not compliant with XXXX. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & ( a ) ( 5 ) Investigation Failure : Ignored multiple disputes; did not delete unverifiable items within XXXX XXXX  611 ( a ) mandates immediate removal. \nFCRA 1681c-2 ( 605B ) Identity Theft Blocking Failure : Must block fraud within XXXX  business days upon receiving police/FTC reports ( attached ) your refusal is willful.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 Furnisher Violations : Furnished inaccurate info despite notice ; no validation from original creditor ( I am the original creditor under 15 U.S.C. 1602 ( f ) and do NOT validate these debts ). \nFCRA 1681n Willful Noncompliance : Accepted unverified info without eyewitness verification ; punishable by {$1000.00} per violation ( demand {$1000.00} x XXXX items = {$18000.00} minimum ). \nFDCPA 1692e ( 807 ) False/Misleading Reporting : Reporting leads creditors to believe I applied/owe debts ; deceptive positive balances implying \" debt '' without negative sign.\n\nFDCPA 1692f Unfair Practices : Collecting unauthorized amounts; using symbols/logos on envelopes indicating debt collection ; no law requires payment of unvalidated bills. \nFDCPA 1692g Validation Failure : Only I ( original creditor ) can validate XXXX  DO NOT ; no original contract or XXXX  validation provided.\n\nFDCPA 1692j Deceptive Forms : Furnished inaccurate accounts as accurate without validation. \nFDCPA 806 Harassment/Abuse : Repeated reporting causes harassment via calls/letters ; ruins reputation ( defamation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ).\n\nFDCPA 1692b ( 2 ) Location Disclosure : Shared my location/address while stating I owe debts to XXXX XXXX. \nGLBA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ) ) Unauthorized Disclosure : Disclosed nonpublic info without consent or opt-out notice ; deceptive nondisclosure of rights.\n\nTILA 1666b Timing of Payments : Reported undefined \" late payments '' inaccurately.\n\nTILA 1605 Finance Charges : Failed to define/sum charges properly. \nXXXX ( 18 U.S.C. 1028A ) Aggravated Identity Theft : Facilitated fraud using my identifying info without consent.\n\nPrivacy Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552a ) Federal Disclosures : Restricted unauthorized sharing of personal records. \n15 U.S.C. 1693a ( 2 ) No Account : No \" account '' exists for collection review.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1341 Mail Fraud : Used mails to perpetrate deceptive reporting scheme.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681g, DISCLOSE ALL DOCUMENTS in your files used for XXXX NOT claim \" verified by provider '' ; send copies or DELETE. \nDemands : BLOCK and DELETE all listed items WITHIN XXXX ( XXXX ) BUSINESS DAYS under FCRA 605B. \nCOMPLETE FULL INVESTIGATION and PERMANENT DELETION WITHIN XXXX ( XXXX ) DAYS under FCRA 1681i. \nCEASE ALL DISCLOSURES under XXXX XXXX and FDCPA. \nPROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION within XXXX ( XXXX ) DAYS of removal, plus FREE UPDATED CREDIT REPORT under FCRA 1681j. \nCOMPENSATE {$1000.00} PER VIOLATION ( {$18000.00} minimum ) plus actual damages ( financial losses, emotional distress ), punitive damages, and attorney fees under FCRA 1681n. \nVERIFY WITH BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ( questions from prior letters ) and include response. \nRETURN ANY PAYMENTS on invalid debts under FDCPA 1692h. \n\nAttachments : XXXX XXXX Police Report ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \nFTC Identity Theft Report ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \nCredit report excerpts. \nPrior dispute copies with certified mail receipts. \nID, proof of address, SSN card. \n\nNONCOMPLIANCE WILL TRIGGER IMMEDIATE LITIGATION in federal court/small claims, complaints to CFPB, FTC, XXXX, BBB, and DOJ for XXXX referrals under XXXX and mail fraud. I CERTIFY this is NOT in error, NO misrepresentation, and I received NO goods/services from these transactions ( certify otherwise under perjury per 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T15:09:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33178","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17620260","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-01T15:09:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FDCPA 1692f Unfair Practices : Collecting unauthorized amounts; using symbols/logos on envelopes <em>indicating</em> debt collection ; no law requires payment of unvalidated bills. \nFDCPA 1692g Validation Failure : <em>Only</em> I ( original creditor ) can validate XXXX  DO NOT ; no original contract or XXXX  validation provided.\n\nFDCPA 1692j Deceptive <em>Forms</em> : Furnished inaccurate accounts as accurate without validation."]},"sort":[9.097897,"17620260"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17637656","_score":9.085512,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Willful Violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( Consumer Privacy Rights ), 1681b ( Permissible Purposes ), 1681e ( b ) ( Accuracy Procedures ), 1681i ( Investigations ), 1681n ( Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance ), 1681c-2 ( 605B Blocking Identity Theft Info ), 1681s-2 ( Furnisher Duties ) ; FDCPA 1692e ( False Representations ), 1692f ( Unfair Practices ), 1692g ( Validation ), 1692j ( Deceptive Forms ), 806 ( Harassment ), 807 ( Misleading Reporting ) ; GLBA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 6802 Unauthorized Disclosure ) ; TILA XXXX ( Timing of Payments ), XXXX ( Finance Charges ) ; XXXX  ( 18 U.S.C. 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693a ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; and 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( Mail Fraud ) Demand for Immediate Deletion, {$1000.00} Per Violation Statutory Damages, Punitive Damages, and Full Compensation To Whom It May Concern : This is my FINAL AND URGENT DEMAND for the IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT DELETION of the fraudulent XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy public record ( Filed : XX/XX/XXXX ; Reference Number : XXXX ; Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida, XXXX Division ), all XXXX associated unauthorized accounts, XXXX unauthorized inquiries, and any related derogatory marks from my credit file. Despite multiple prior disputes, Equifax has only partially complied by removing the public record but FAILED to delete the attached accounts ; Experian and TransUnion continue to report ALL fraudulent information. This constitutes WILLFUL, DELIBERATE, AND CRIMINAL NONCOMPLIANCE with XXXX  laws, perpetuating IDENTITY THEFT and violating my privacy rights. I am a VICTIM OF IDENTITY THEFT, FTC Identity Theft Report ( Number XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX ), both of which detail the fraudulent use of my personal information in this bankruptcy and accounts. \n\nYour continued reporting of this unverifiable, fraudulent data is an EGREGIOUS INFRINGEMENT ON MY PRIVACY under 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 4 ), which affirms the consumer 's right to privacy and sole discretion over what is deemed private. XXXX explicitly recognizes that consumers like me have the RIGHT TO DECIDE what personal financial matters are privateI DEEM ALL THIS INFORMATION PRIVATE AND DO NOT CONSENT TO ITS SHARING ON MY CREDIT REPORT. By reporting these items without my authorization, you have caused severe paranoia, emotional distress requiring medication, reputational harm, financial losses ( e.g., denied credit, higher interest rates ), and harassment from collection agenciesmaking you LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES under FCRA 1681n ( up to {$1000.00} per violation, plus actual and punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs ). \nFraudulent Items to Be DELETED IMMEDIATELY : Bankruptcy Public Record : XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), Filed : XX/XX/XXXX, Reference Number : XXXX, Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida ( XXXX Division ). The court has CONFIRMED in writing ( XX/XX/XXXX letter, attached ) that it \" does not transmit or initiate conveyance of data to credit reporting agencies, '' rendering this entirely UNVERIFIABLE and ILLEGITIMATE. \nAssociated Unauthorized Accounts ( All Tied to Fraudulent Bankruptcy XXXX Items ) : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized Inquiries ( All Resulting from Identity Theft XXXX Items ) : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX I DID NOT AUTHORIZE, CONSENT TO, OR BENEFIT FROM ANY OF THESE ITEMSI NEVER APPLIED FOR CREDIT WITH THESE COMPANIES, AND THIS IS CONFIRMED IDENTITY THEFT. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( Permissible Purposes ), you may ONLY furnish a consumer report with WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS from the consumer or a permissible purposeNEITHER EXISTS HERE, making your actions ILLEGAL IDENTITY THEFT FACILITATION under 18 U.S.C. 1028A ( Aggravated Identity Theft, punishable by up to XXXX  years imprisonment ). You shared my information with creditors without consent, criminally liable for aiding fraud. \nSpecific Violations Committed ( Willful and Negligent Noncompliance ) : FCRA 1681a ( 4 ) Privacy Rights Violation : Reporting private matters ( inquiries, accounts, bankruptcy ) without my consent infringes on my sole right to privacy, causing paranoia and medication needsliable for damages. \nFCRA 1681b ( f ) Impermissible Access : You obtained and reported my information under FALSE PRETENSES without certification or my written consent, violating XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ). \nFCRA 1681e ( b ) Accuracy Failure : Failed to follow reasonable procedures for maximum accuracy; reported unvalidated, fraudulent data not compliant with XXXX. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & ( a ) ( 5 ) Investigation Failure : Ignored multiple disputes; did not delete unverifiable items within XXXX XXXX  611 ( a ) mandates immediate removal. \nFCRA 1681c-2 ( 605B ) Identity Theft Blocking Failure : Must block fraud within XXXX  business days upon receiving police/FTC reports ( attached ) your refusal is willful.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 Furnisher Violations : Furnished inaccurate info despite notice ; no validation from original creditor ( I am the original creditor under 15 U.S.C. 1602 ( f ) and do NOT validate these debts ). \nFCRA 1681n Willful Noncompliance : Accepted unverified info without eyewitness verification ; punishable by {$1000.00} per violation ( demand {$1000.00} x XXXX items = {$18000.00} minimum ). \nFDCPA 1692e ( 807 ) False/Misleading Reporting : Reporting leads creditors to believe I applied/owe debts ; deceptive positive balances implying \" debt '' without negative sign.\n\nFDCPA 1692f Unfair Practices : Collecting unauthorized amounts; using symbols/logos on envelopes indicating debt collection ; no law requires payment of unvalidated bills. \nFDCPA 1692g Validation Failure : Only I ( original creditor ) can validate XXXX  DO NOT ; no original contract or XXXX  validation provided.\n\nFDCPA 1692j Deceptive Forms : Furnished inaccurate accounts as accurate without validation. \nFDCPA 806 Harassment/Abuse : Repeated reporting causes harassment via calls/letters ; ruins reputation ( defamation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ).\n\nFDCPA 1692b ( 2 ) Location Disclosure : Shared my location/address while stating I owe debts to XXXX XXXX. \nGLBA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ) ) Unauthorized Disclosure : Disclosed nonpublic info without consent or opt-out notice ; deceptive nondisclosure of rights.\n\nTILA 1666b Timing of Payments : Reported undefined \" late payments '' inaccurately.\n\nTILA 1605 Finance Charges : Failed to define/sum charges properly. \nXXXX ( 18 U.S.C. 1028A ) Aggravated Identity Theft : Facilitated fraud using my identifying info without consent.\n\nPrivacy Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552a ) Federal Disclosures : Restricted unauthorized sharing of personal records. \n15 U.S.C. 1693a ( 2 ) No Account : No \" account '' exists for collection review.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1341 Mail Fraud : Used mails to perpetrate deceptive reporting scheme.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681g, DISCLOSE ALL DOCUMENTS in your files used for XXXX NOT claim \" verified by provider '' ; send copies or DELETE. \nDemands : BLOCK and DELETE all listed items WITHIN XXXX ( XXXX ) BUSINESS DAYS under FCRA 605B. \nCOMPLETE FULL INVESTIGATION and PERMANENT DELETION WITHIN XXXX ( XXXX ) DAYS under FCRA 1681i. \nCEASE ALL DISCLOSURES under XXXX XXXX and FDCPA. \nPROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION within XXXX ( XXXX ) DAYS of removal, plus FREE UPDATED CREDIT REPORT under FCRA 1681j. \nCOMPENSATE {$1000.00} PER VIOLATION ( {$18000.00} minimum ) plus actual damages ( financial losses, emotional distress ), punitive damages, and attorney fees under FCRA 1681n. \nVERIFY WITH BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ( questions from prior letters ) and include response. \nRETURN ANY PAYMENTS on invalid debts under FDCPA 1692h. \n\nAttachments : XXXX XXXX Police Report ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \nFTC Identity Theft Report ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \nCredit report excerpts. \nPrior dispute copies with certified mail receipts. \nID, proof of address, SSN card. \n\nNONCOMPLIANCE WILL TRIGGER IMMEDIATE LITIGATION in federal court/small claims, complaints to CFPB, FTC, XXXX, BBB, and DOJ for XXXX referrals under XXXX and mail fraud. I CERTIFY this is NOT in error, NO misrepresentation, and I received NO goods/services from these transactions ( certify otherwise under perjury per 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T15:09:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33178","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17637656","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-01T15:09:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FDCPA 1692f Unfair Practices : Collecting unauthorized amounts; using symbols/logos on envelopes <em>indicating</em> debt collection ; no law requires payment of unvalidated bills. \nFDCPA 1692g Validation Failure : <em>Only</em> I ( original creditor ) can validate XXXX  DO NOT ; no original contract or XXXX  validation provided.\n\nFDCPA 1692j Deceptive <em>Forms</em> : Furnished inaccurate accounts as accurate without validation."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.085512,"17637656"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17621037","_score":9.085512,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Willful Violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( Consumer Privacy Rights ), 1681b ( Permissible Purposes ), 1681e ( b ) ( Accuracy Procedures ), 1681i ( Investigations ), 1681n ( Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance ), 1681c-2 ( 605B Blocking Identity Theft Info ), 1681s-2 ( Furnisher Duties ) ; FDCPA 1692e ( False Representations ), 1692f ( Unfair Practices ), 1692g ( Validation ), 1692j ( Deceptive Forms ), 806 ( Harassment ), 807 ( Misleading Reporting ) ; GLBA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 6802 Unauthorized Disclosure ) ; TILA XXXX ( Timing of Payments ), XXXX ( Finance Charges ) ; XXXX  ( 18 U.S.C. 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693a ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; and 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( Mail Fraud ) Demand for Immediate Deletion, {$1000.00} Per Violation Statutory Damages, Punitive Damages, and Full Compensation To Whom It May Concern : This is my FINAL AND URGENT DEMAND for the IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT DELETION of the fraudulent XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy public record ( Filed : XX/XX/XXXX ; Reference Number : XXXX ; Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida, XXXX Division ), all XXXX associated unauthorized accounts, XXXX unauthorized inquiries, and any related derogatory marks from my credit file. Despite multiple prior disputes, Equifax has only partially complied by removing the public record but FAILED to delete the attached accounts ; Experian and TransUnion continue to report ALL fraudulent information. This constitutes WILLFUL, DELIBERATE, AND CRIMINAL NONCOMPLIANCE with XXXX  laws, perpetuating IDENTITY THEFT and violating my privacy rights. I am a VICTIM OF IDENTITY THEFT, FTC Identity Theft Report ( Number XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX ), both of which detail the fraudulent use of my personal information in this bankruptcy and accounts. \n\nYour continued reporting of this unverifiable, fraudulent data is an EGREGIOUS INFRINGEMENT ON MY PRIVACY under 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 4 ), which affirms the consumer 's right to privacy and sole discretion over what is deemed private. XXXX explicitly recognizes that consumers like me have the RIGHT TO DECIDE what personal financial matters are privateI DEEM ALL THIS INFORMATION PRIVATE AND DO NOT CONSENT TO ITS SHARING ON MY CREDIT REPORT. By reporting these items without my authorization, you have caused severe paranoia, emotional distress requiring medication, reputational harm, financial losses ( e.g., denied credit, higher interest rates ), and harassment from collection agenciesmaking you LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES under FCRA 1681n ( up to {$1000.00} per violation, plus actual and punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs ). \nFraudulent Items to Be DELETED IMMEDIATELY : Bankruptcy Public Record : XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), Filed : XX/XX/XXXX, Reference Number : XXXX, Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida ( XXXX Division ). The court has CONFIRMED in writing ( XX/XX/XXXX letter, attached ) that it \" does not transmit or initiate conveyance of data to credit reporting agencies, '' rendering this entirely UNVERIFIABLE and ILLEGITIMATE. \nAssociated Unauthorized Accounts ( All Tied to Fraudulent Bankruptcy XXXX Items ) : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized Inquiries ( All Resulting from Identity Theft XXXX Items ) : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX I DID NOT AUTHORIZE, CONSENT TO, OR BENEFIT FROM ANY OF THESE ITEMSI NEVER APPLIED FOR CREDIT WITH THESE COMPANIES, AND THIS IS CONFIRMED IDENTITY THEFT. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( Permissible Purposes ), you may ONLY furnish a consumer report with WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS from the consumer or a permissible purposeNEITHER EXISTS HERE, making your actions ILLEGAL IDENTITY THEFT FACILITATION under 18 U.S.C. 1028A ( Aggravated Identity Theft, punishable by up to XXXX  years imprisonment ). You shared my information with creditors without consent, criminally liable for aiding fraud. \nSpecific Violations Committed ( Willful and Negligent Noncompliance ) : FCRA 1681a ( 4 ) Privacy Rights Violation : Reporting private matters ( inquiries, accounts, bankruptcy ) without my consent infringes on my sole right to privacy, causing paranoia and medication needsliable for damages. \nFCRA 1681b ( f ) Impermissible Access : You obtained and reported my information under FALSE PRETENSES without certification or my written consent, violating XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ). \nFCRA 1681e ( b ) Accuracy Failure : Failed to follow reasonable procedures for maximum accuracy; reported unvalidated, fraudulent data not compliant with XXXX. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & ( a ) ( 5 ) Investigation Failure : Ignored multiple disputes; did not delete unverifiable items within XXXX XXXX  611 ( a ) mandates immediate removal. \nFCRA 1681c-2 ( 605B ) Identity Theft Blocking Failure : Must block fraud within XXXX  business days upon receiving police/FTC reports ( attached ) your refusal is willful.\n\nFCRA 1681s-2 Furnisher Violations : Furnished inaccurate info despite notice ; no validation from original creditor ( I am the original creditor under 15 U.S.C. 1602 ( f ) and do NOT validate these debts ). \nFCRA 1681n Willful Noncompliance : Accepted unverified info without eyewitness verification ; punishable by {$1000.00} per violation ( demand {$1000.00} x XXXX items = {$18000.00} minimum ). \nFDCPA 1692e ( 807 ) False/Misleading Reporting : Reporting leads creditors to believe I applied/owe debts ; deceptive positive balances implying \" debt '' without negative sign.\n\nFDCPA 1692f Unfair Practices : Collecting unauthorized amounts; using symbols/logos on envelopes indicating debt collection ; no law requires payment of unvalidated bills. \nFDCPA 1692g Validation Failure : Only I ( original creditor ) can validate XXXX  DO NOT ; no original contract or XXXX  validation provided.\n\nFDCPA 1692j Deceptive Forms : Furnished inaccurate accounts as accurate without validation. \nFDCPA 806 Harassment/Abuse : Repeated reporting causes harassment via calls/letters ; ruins reputation ( defamation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ).\n\nFDCPA 1692b ( 2 ) Location Disclosure : Shared my location/address while stating I owe debts to XXXX XXXX. \nGLBA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( B ) ( C ) ) Unauthorized Disclosure : Disclosed nonpublic info without consent or opt-out notice ; deceptive nondisclosure of rights.\n\nTILA 1666b Timing of Payments : Reported undefined \" late payments '' inaccurately.\n\nTILA 1605 Finance Charges : Failed to define/sum charges properly. \nXXXX ( 18 U.S.C. 1028A ) Aggravated Identity Theft : Facilitated fraud using my identifying info without consent.\n\nPrivacy Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552a ) Federal Disclosures : Restricted unauthorized sharing of personal records. \n15 U.S.C. 1693a ( 2 ) No Account : No \" account '' exists for collection review.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1341 Mail Fraud : Used mails to perpetrate deceptive reporting scheme.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681g, DISCLOSE ALL DOCUMENTS in your files used for XXXX NOT claim \" verified by provider '' ; send copies or DELETE. \nDemands : BLOCK and DELETE all listed items WITHIN XXXX ( XXXX ) BUSINESS DAYS under FCRA 605B. \nCOMPLETE FULL INVESTIGATION and PERMANENT DELETION WITHIN XXXX ( XXXX ) DAYS under FCRA 1681i. \nCEASE ALL DISCLOSURES under XXXX XXXX and FDCPA. \nPROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION within XXXX ( XXXX ) DAYS of removal, plus FREE UPDATED CREDIT REPORT under FCRA 1681j. \nCOMPENSATE {$1000.00} PER VIOLATION ( {$18000.00} minimum ) plus actual damages ( financial losses, emotional distress ), punitive damages, and attorney fees under FCRA 1681n. \nVERIFY WITH BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ( questions from prior letters ) and include response. \nRETURN ANY PAYMENTS on invalid debts under FDCPA 1692h. \n\nAttachments : XXXX XXXX Police Report ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \nFTC Identity Theft Report ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \nXXXX Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \nCredit report excerpts. \nPrior dispute copies with certified mail receipts. \nID, proof of address, SSN card. \n\nNONCOMPLIANCE WILL TRIGGER IMMEDIATE LITIGATION in federal court/small claims, complaints to CFPB, FTC, XXXX, BBB, and DOJ for XXXX referrals under XXXX and mail fraud. I CERTIFY this is NOT in error, NO misrepresentation, and I received NO goods/services from these transactions ( certify otherwise under perjury per 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T15:09:38.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33178","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17621037","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-01T14:53:04.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FDCPA 1692f Unfair Practices : Collecting unauthorized amounts; using symbols/logos on envelopes <em>indicating</em> debt collection ; no law requires payment of unvalidated bills. \nFDCPA 1692g Validation Failure : <em>Only</em> I ( original creditor ) can validate XXXX  DO NOT ; no original contract or XXXX  validation provided.\n\nFDCPA 1692j Deceptive <em>Forms</em> : Furnished inaccurate accounts as accurate without validation."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.085512,"17621037"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10487804","_score":8.572329,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Re : NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE : Formal Demand for Full Account Disclosure and Ledger Transparency, Certified Verification of Alleged Debt, Cease and Desist any and all Consumer Reporting in Perpetuity of the Inaccuracy and Incompleteness of Accounts Ending : XXXX and XXXX to any and all Consumer Reporting Agencies Dear Sir/Madam : I write to you with grave concern regarding the continued and deliberate failure of Toyota Financial Services ( TFS ) and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ( TMCC ) to address the serious matters I have raised in previous correspondence. Both TFS and TMCCs silence and refusal to engage with these substantive issues constitute a breach of good faith, trust and transparency, fundamental principles that should guide any reputable financial institution. \n\nDespite my repeated demands, TFS and TMCC have equally failed to provide a true and accurate bill, nor has TFS or TMCC disclosed the full journal, T-balance, double-entry bookkeeping of the general account ledger, managerial accounting, or have provided the XXXX  number ( s ) associated with the account ( s ). As the master beneficiary and registered owner of the accounts, I have an unequivocal right to inspect the demanded records, including all underlying accounting information, to verify that the financial statements and ledgers related to my accounts are accurate, balanced, and free from errors or discrepancies. It is deeply troubling that this lawful demand continues to be ignored, raising serious questions about TFS and TMCCs commitment to transparency. \n\nInstead of complying with these reasonable and lawful demands, TFS and TMCC have persisted in sending generic, computer-generated stall letters that provide no meaningful response. I must ask : why does TFS and TMCC consistently refuse to have a qualified individuala man or woman, who can swear under oath or by affidavit under penalty of perjurycertify that there is a legitimate debt owed on the account ( s ), along with substantiating documentation of the balance claimed to be due? The lack of an appropriate response raises significant concerns about whether TFS and TMCC are acting with transparency and integrity, or whether they are, in fact, engaged in conduct designed to deceive. \n\nTFS and TMCCs continued failure to provide the demanded records, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) and pursuant to U.C.C. 9-210, suggests either a deliberate refusal to comply or an inability to substantiate the claims being made against me. This lack of transparency and apparent unwillingness to act in good faith strongly suggests malicious intent and fraud by deception. \n\nLet this letter serve as formal notice that if TFS and TMCC continue to act in dishonor and refuse to provide the full records and entries of accounting, along with XXXX  number ( s ) as demanded, certified and signed under seal by an authorized agent or representative, under penalty of perjury, I will have no choice but to pursue all available legal remedies which will compel TFS and TMCC to produce said documents and proof of claim in a court of law. TFS and TMCCs refusal to provide these documents and to engage in transparent, good faith dealings has caused, and continues to cause me significant harm, injury and damages. I will not hesitate to hold TFS and TMCC accountable in a court of law and seek redress. \n\nFurthermore, in response to TFS and TMCCs recent communication dated XX/XX/XXXX concerning the alleged balance and debt associated with the above-referenced account TFS and TMCC claim to have in fact, confirmed to be validated with absolutely no verifiable evidence or proof to substantiate TFS or TMCCs position or claim. I would like to formally dispute the validity of the alleged debt and TFS and TMCCs use of billing statements as sufficient evidence of the alleged amount claimed to be owed. \n\nIt has been well-established in numerous court decisions that mere credit card billing statements do not constitute valid or sufficient evidence of a debt owed. In particular, courts have ruled that billing statements alone fail to meet the burden of proof required to substantiate the existence or amount of a debt. The following cases support this position : Lack of Foundational Evidence : Courts have often ruled that billing statements are inadmissible unless they are accompanied by testimony or evidence establishing that the records are kept in the ordinary course of business and accurately reflect the amounts owed. This requirement is often discussed in cases that involve the XXXX XXXX XXXX to the hearsay rule ( Federal Rule of Evidence 803 ( 6 ) ). \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : The court ruled that billing statements were not enough to establish a valid debt, especially without a signed contract or other evidence proving that the defendant had agreed to the terms of the debt. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : This case established that billing statements alone were insufficient to establish the validity of the debt. The court required a showing of the original contract and other evidence to substantiate the claim. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) : This case reaffirmed that billing statements without further documentation, such as a signed agreement, are inadequate to establish the validity of a debt claim. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) : This case highlights that debt collectors must provide more than mere billing statements to substantiate their claim. They need to provide proper documentation of the debt, such as the original agreement and the chain of title if the debt has been sold. \nGiven the legal precedent established in the above cases, I respectfully demand that TFS and TMCC provide valid and sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged debt, including but not limited to : A copy of the original signed retail installment sales contracts, and certified documentation of the proof of funds that created the money/credit on account ( credit/trade line ) . \nCertified documentation showing a lawful binding contract between both parties with certified authorization and wet ink signatures of the parties agreeing to the terms and conditions governing the accounts. \nCertified documentation of the XXXX  number ( s ) associated with the account ending in XXXX and XXXX. \nThe 1099-OID that confirms TFS and TMCC to be the original issuer of the funds and/or credit and me to be the recipient of the funds and/or credit. \nThe 1099-C or any other tax forms, that TFS and TMCC have reported, or is failing to report the account as a charge-off but not reporting the taxes to the Internal Revenue Service of the interest and income TFS and TMCC is collecting. \nAny and all UCC-1, UCC-3 filings confirming who the Debtor and who the Secured Party are in the matter of the accounts in question. \nAny and all documents by and between TFS and TMCC and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for any and all application ( s ) for notes in accordance with Federal Reserve Act Section 16 ( 2 ) - Application for notes by Federal Reserve banks pertaining to the account in question. \nCertified documentation in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) and pursuant to U.C.C. 9-210 of the journal, T-balance, double-entry bookkeeping records of the general accounting ledger ( s ) showing all records and evidence of accounts payable, accounts receivables, debit and credit entries. \n\nPlease note that I am asserting my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and other applicable laws, which require that you cease any and all collection and reporting activities until such evidence is provided. \nWith that in mind, I also want to point out that the consumer information ( trade line ) being reported by TFS and TMCC as the responsible data furnisher to the Consumer Reporting Agencies is not being accurately reported and is causing me harm, injury and damage by not being able to acquire goods and services needed for personal, family and household use/purposes. Upon TFS and TMCCs abrupt and unwarranted closure of the accounts ( trade lines ), the now closed account ( trade line ) is still reporting an alleged remaining balance of {$4400.00} that TFS and TMCC Charged-Off and is being adversely reported on my credit report as a Charged-Off account. \n\nAs you are aware, TFS and TMCC, as well as all other businesses lawfully acting in commerce utilizes the IRS form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt for the remaining debt obligation not recovered from defaulted trade lines. From speaking with both Certified Public Accountants and the IRS directly, regarding tax obligations, such an IRS form is then reported as INCOME and not as a DEBT on a consumer 's tax filing requirements. While the business can cancel/write-off the account receivable as a BAD DEBT and receive a tax deduction as mentioned in the IRS Topic 453. \n\nThis current issue of TFS and TMCC furnishing this inaccurate information on my consumer credit report is clearly not only going against the rules of construction in the area of exclusions per 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ), ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) of reports containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. This inaccurate information as to what the IRS Publication 4681 defines as Income and not Debt is being furnished to third party data furnishers as well.\n\nPerhaps this is a small oversight that TFS and TMCC are not aware of and can address\nquickly at no cost by submitting a request to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc to remove these inaccurate derogatory accounts from my credit profile since the DEBT has been canceled and reported as INCOME as well as to stop the current harm, injury and damage so that I can continue to prosper in my journey of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, the fundamentally protected rights guarded and guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and Constitutions Bill of Rights, the bedrock and cornerstones of this great nation. \n\nIf for some reason, this is not the correct understanding of the exclusions part in the construction of a consumers credit report with accurate information and the correct IRS reporting of a Debt charged-off and reported as Income, I would appreciate TFS and TMCC letting me know, with accurate supporting details, so that I can be a better informed consumer and honest taxpayer. \n\nFurthermore, upon the transfer and securitization of the auto receivables ( asset-backed security ), the issuer, TFS and TMCC cease to be the holder in due course, relinquishing its legal standing to enforce payment from the account holder. This is because, through the securitization process, the issuer, TFS and TMCC, conveys and transfers its rights, titles, and interest in the accounts receivable to the trust or Special Purpose Vehicle ( SPV ), which now holds the legal claim to those assets. \n\nConsequently, any attempt by the issuer, TFS and TMCC, to enforce payment directly from the account holder would be unlawful and a misrepresentation, as the issuer, TFS and TMCC no longer possesses the accounts receivable ( asset-back security ) and has waived all of its rights associated with them upon their transfer. This transfer removes the issuers, TFS and TMCCs, authority to claim or collect on the debt, rendering any further attempts to do so without proper legal standing. \n\nPlease be advised that, due to TFS and TMCCs failure to properly report the income associated with the charge-off of my account and TFS and TMCCs failure to issue a Form 1099-C, I will be forced to notify and instruct the IRS to conduct an audit of the accounts. It appears that TFS and TMCC have not fulfilled their obligation to report the cancellation of debt as income to both myself and the IRS, which has prevented me from appropriately accounting for the tax liability related to this unreported income. This lack of proper reporting is a serious matter, and I am taking steps to ensure that it is fully investigated and that all parties comply with their legal responsibilities regarding the accurate reporting of canceled debts. \n\nThis notice constitutes TFS and TMCCs final opportunity to provide the demanded documentation within fifteen ( 15 ) days of the date of this notice. Failure to comply will result in the immediate initiation of legal action. The preponderance of evidence indicating fraud and theft by deception, carried out with malicious intent to harm, damage, and injure, is now apparent. Should legal proceedings become necessary, this evidence will be presented as admissible proof of TFS and TMCCs actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-17T20:25:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10487804","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-10-17T19:58:06.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of complying with these reasonable and lawful demands, TFS and TMCC have persisted in sending generic, computer-generated stall <em>letters</em> that provide no meaningful <em>response</em>. I must ask : why does TFS and TMCC consistently refuse to have a qualified individuala man or woman, who can swear <em>under</em> oath or by affidavit <em>under</em> penalty of perjurycertify that there is a legitimate debt owed on the account ( s ), along with substantiating documentation of the balance claimed to be due?"]},"sort":[8.572329,"10487804"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3213554","_score":8.282841,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"General-In XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed a 30 late payment to my mortgage company that had been on my credit report since XX/XX/XXXX. I filed a dispute. The incorrect info was deleted from my account. Then a late payment suddenly showed up under that same account for XXXX. I filed a new dispute. US Bank agrees that the XXXX payment should NOT be recognized as late. They submitted pertinent info to XXXX, but the mark still exists. I have been working on getting this corrected for over 2 months now. NO LUCK. I have been typing \" real time '' notes of individuals I have spoke with from US Bank. The notes are listed below. There are other calls that I have made to XXXX   as well. \n\nUS Bank Conversation Regarding information that shows on my credit file. \nCalled US Bank - XX/XX/XXXX During lunch Call began at XXXX XXXX. I spoke with XXXX ( could not give his last name ) ID # XXXX. The conversation lasted 1 hour and 14 minutes ( see image below ). I described my issue which surrounds two negative entries to my credit file for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I explained that I filed a dispute with XXXX in late XX/XX/XXXX. I explained further that the results came back that the XXXX entry was incorrect, and now shows to be on time and NOT late. \nI explained that the XXXX payment still remains. I also explained that now my credit report displays that XXXX of that same year was supposedly late. One of my questions was this ; What caused the XXXX report to be originally filed as late and also, since I filed the dispute, how did they find the error? XXXX explained that the payment was processed on the XXXX of XXXX, well within the month. I made sure to explain that I got a second mortgage in XXXX and that I paid a higher interest rate due to the XXXX error. He said he would put in a work order to find out. \nWe then discussed the XXXX payment ( which I believe shows as a XXXX entry ), he said that the payment should have an effective date of XX/XX/XXXX. The payment was processed a few days into XXXX, but that is just typical processing. The date that matters is the date the payment was called in which was the XXXX. I stressed to XXXX that I would like to have someone ( like a Supervisor ) take a look at the same information that XXXX has visibility to and see if they can have it removed quickly as I am trying to get a loan. He said that he has put in a work order to have this looked at, but he agreed to speak with his supervisor to see if a rush could be put on it. I asked him if he sees anything that should cause XXXX to have been added. He said he did not. \nXXXX took down my email address and said that I will receive a response once the Customer Research Department finds out why XXXX was originally reported as late ( 3 years ago ) and also what was the actual error that was discovered that allowed them to delete the negative information from my credit file once I disputed the item. The other information that this team will report to me, is the reason for determining that XXXX would need to be reported as 30 days late despite the fact that the effective date should show as XX/XX/XXXX. \nCalled US Bank XX/XX/XXXX After Lunch Spoke with XXXX ID # XXXX I explained to XXXX the conversation I had with XXXX one week prior. I asked her if she was able to retrieve the notes of that conversation. She did find the Work Order that XXXX initiated. She described that the notes show that it was expected to be completed by XX/XX/XXXX ( yesterday ). I asked her if she had visibility to review the alleged late payment from XXXX ( Reported in  XXXX ) of XXXX. She went into the system and was unable to see that same info or go back far enough. \nShe said she would reach out to the Investigation Team to see what was happening presently with the research. She put me on hold and reached out to the team. She came back on the line indicating that there is a letter that is scheduled to be sent out to me. Then she read the letter to me. The letter indicated that the XXXX Payment ( Reported in XXXX ) will be reported to the credit bureaus that it was NOT late. I asked XXXX about her thoughts that I had to endure a 30-day late payment on my credit history for a total of 3 years. She said she felt bad and completely understood how I would likely feel. \nAfter reading the letter, I asked XXXX if she had any additional information regarding the removal of the XX/XX/XXXX error. She did not find any information that described details on the US Banks error from XX/XX/XXXX. I requested that she ensures that the already completed letter be sent to me as soon as possible, but that the Research Committee continue to review the XX/XX/XXXX error and follow-up with a letter when complete. I stressed that even if they were unable to uncover the true reason for the error, that they still supply a plausible reason for the error. XXXX indicated that she would be willing to enter a Work-order to have that investigation and letter supplied to me. She did take a moment to ask the Investigation Department if they could think of a possible reason to explain this. She said that they indicated that it is possible that if it were a phone payment, it could have been misapplied. Another possible reason is that the computer system could have caused the error. \nReceived Email with Letter from US Bank XX/XX/XXXX The letter was brief, with a couple of details. It mentioned that back in XX/XX/XXXX, the payment transaction went through on the XXXX of the following month. It was reported late to the credit bureau, but was then corrected, acknowledging that the effective date was the XXXX of the necessary month. At that time ( if I understand it correctly ), the credit bureau was notified that the late payment entry should be removed. This did not, however, explain why in XX/XX/XXXX, when I filed a dispute, did the XXXX late payment once again show up on my credit file. I had made a previous request to XXXX and XXXX at US Bank about this. \nThis letter also made a brief note that the XX/XX/XXXX US Bank records did not indicate that this payment was late. I was having trouble trying to understand why it would show up on my credit file which I have a copy ( and screenshot ) of. As a reminder, when I filed the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, the determination was made that XXXX should have not been on my record ( for the past three years ). As a result of that dispute and determination, the XXXX late payment record was removed from my credit file. In my previous conversations with XXXX and XXXX, I requested from both of them that I needed answers in a couple areas. 1. I needed to know why XXXX had been listed as a late payment since XXXX. I also wanted to know what work was done to determine that it should be removed after I filed my dispute. 2.  How did XX/XX/XXXX all of a sudden show up on my credit report as being 30 days late. This hadnt been reported previously, meaning since XX/XX/XXXX. How did my dispute of XX/XX/XXXX prompt a review/discovery/change to XX/XX/XXXX? I wanted to know how this happened. Was this a manual discovery or a computer discovery? The main takeaway here is that the letter I received did not spell out why these things happened. As a result, I called US Bank on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX. \nCalled US Bank XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX. I explained that I had just received a letter from US Bank with intentions of explaining that the XX/XX/XXXX payment was originally entered as late in XXXX, but soon after, corrected. I also spoke with her about the statement in the letter about XXXX. I requested that XXXX pull up the same letter if it were available. She did find the letter and we talked through it. She understood my concern when I explained how I did not get all of the answers that I was looking for as previously requested to XXXX and XXXX. XXXX also found those historical conversation/notes in my file. She agreed that I deserve an explanation on why the XXXX and XXXX errors happened. She told me that she would file a request that someone work to find out why this happened and send me a letter explaining this. I reminded her that I made this similar request to XXXX and also XXXX. XXXX said that it is possible that someone was still working on that letter but that her request would hopefully prompt them to complete this task. I asked her how long it would take for the credit bureau to get an update on the XXXX error. She stated that it was reported on XX/XX/XXXX and the correction to my file ( at the credit bureau ) should happen very soon. I told her that I would allow a short period of time to pass in anticipation of the letter explaining the details of the errors and would call back at a later time. We ended the conversation with that. \nCalled XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX # XXXX. I explained the situation in brief and that I am curious why my XXXX  credit file still shows that the letter was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. He described that they also sent a copy to the credit bureau and should have arrived by XX/XX/XXXX. I explained that the missing information ( not contained in the letter ) surrounds my request to know WHY this happened in the first place. That is, how XXXX had originally been added and how XXXX was added later. He said that he needed to escalate the call to a higher authority. I was put on hold. Then XXXX # XXXX came on the line. I explained to her that I am seeking a letter to explain what had happened in XX/XX/XXXX that caused an inaccurate reporting to the credit bureau as well as the removal of that month after I disputed it, but the XX/XX/XXXX getting added as a late pmt. to the credit bureau. That caused me to do more work in disputing that month as well. I am also wondering whether or not the credit bureau has been notified. I asked WHICH ONES were notified. She took a brief timeout to read the notes listed in the file. I was put on hold. When she came back on the line, she mentioned that it was quite a long file and that she was still reading the notes. I told her that it was totally fine and that I would wait. Then she came back on the line and said that the correction letters were not detailed at all. She said that she was going to request that the investigation team dig into this and supply a letter. I explained that she is now # 4 on the list that would work to get this info. I asked how it would be possible for her to make this happen. I said I was worried that 6 months from now I would be talking to the 22nd person that would be making a similar promise. I asked her if she understood my concern. She said she looked at the names and recognized some of them. She said that she has a bit more experience than them and wanted to really get to the root cause. She then said she needed to put me on a brief hold. She came back on the line and said, it appears that they are NOT going to explain why it happened. They did not say why they would supply that information. She said that they always notify all XXXX. She said that the info has already been sent, but its a problem that they told them that XXXX should be listed as correct but NOT XXXX. I explained that the law only provides a certain amount of time. She said that as of today, the credit bureau does NOT know that XXXX needs to be removed. I said that I was trying to get a loan and that my interest rates would be higher as a result of this problem. I asked if, due to this clumsy error, this could be escalated and that the credit bureaus could be notified quickly. We both concluded that they do not yet know that XXXX needs to be removed. I could hear in the background her typing very quickly. She put me on hold once again. She came back on the line and said she is looking at the notes. She said that she was hoping it would get accomplished by XX/XX/XXXX. I said thats a huge delay. She said someone would get an email to rush this. I asked if I could get an email. I asked if the letter could be emailed once its complete. She put in the request. I told her that US Bank did this very same thing last time. We discovered that that the error was telling US Bank that XXXX needed be cleared, and not XXXX like it should have been. She went back into her system to look at XXXX of XXXX and it shows that XXXX was not late. I explained that for the past 3 years, neither XXXX or XXXX has shown to be late on my credit file. It was only added just a couple months ago. I told her that if she looked at that same file 3 months ago, XXXX would NOT show as late. She said she would leave this urgent request open to have this investigated. We ended the call after a total of 59 minutes and 51 seconds. \n\n\n\nCalled XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with mortgage dept. I asked to be connected with the research department that was working on my file. The assistant put me on hold, then came back on the line to say that she was checking into it. Her name was XXXX ID XXXX. I explained that I was hoping to get an update on where the Investigation Team was at with my file. She said that the file had not yet been updated and that they were still working on it. I asked from her working history if she could tell if there was actually a difference between something that was put on rush vs something like this that was handled in a normal fashion. She indicated that this was the first time she had seen something be put on rush. I told her I would probably just wait until Monday to call back. She said that she was actually going to suggest the same thing. I thanked her and we ended the call. \n\nI received a letter from US Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. It was dated XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. It states that the XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX installments reflect as current. \nI spoke with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ID XXXX I asked her to pull up the letter I just received. She read the letter and did not comment. Went back to review the pmt. history. She commented that XXXX was actually late. I made her aware of the effective date. \nI asked her to re-read the letter. She agreed that it seems to read that XXXX and XXXX were current. \nAt this point I am unsure what the credit bureau has on file. \nShe said she needed a moment to check on something. I was put on hold. She came back on the line stating that she spoke with a Supervisor and that XXXX and XXXX are considered on time from a US Bank standpoint. She said it could take up to 30 days for the credit bureaus to update their files. \nIt is interesting to note that it states that they submitted a correction for XXXX when XXXX is actually the problem. Why would this letter state that information submitted is accurate when they had to make a correction for XXXX? \n\nXX/XX/XXXX After sending the letter ( stating XXXX and XXXX current ) to XXXX, I called US Bank once again. XXXX with XXXX ID # XXXX. I described the issue. She confirmed that XX/XX/XXXX was received on time. She said the file was closed. I told her that XXXX STILL remains at XXXX. I explained my frustration. She said she was going to get a member of Senior Management on the line. There was a brief pause. When she came back on the line, she said that they spoke senior management and also their supervisor. They reviewed my situation and said that the case will be reopened and that there will be a rush placed on this order. I asked her what the difference in timing would be when something is place on a rush status. She said that the Supervisor has 24 hours to look into this. She said she asked them if they could call XXXX direct and they said the system does not work that way. She said she would call me back on Monday to give me the results. Once again, she went on to explain that the XX/XX/XXXX payment shows as NOT being late. I will wait for the call. \n\n\nCalled XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with the mortgage dept. I asked them if they had an update on my file. The person I spoke with an individual named XXXX ID XXXX to see what the status was on their end. I shared that I received an email from XXXX stating that my file had been updated. This was unfortunate because it is incorrect. She stated that it has been reported to XXXX that the file was correct. I asked her to read the letter that US Bank sent to me suggesting that both XXXX and XXXX were made on time. She found and read the letter agreeing with this fact. XXXX explained that US Bank has until the XXXX to finalize the work order. I asked when the last time was that US Bank spoke with XXXX. She indicated that it was around XX/XX/XXXX. I reminded her that I just received an email this morning indicating that my XXXX file had been updated. The update shows that XX/XX/XXXX is still reporting as being 30 days late. I told XXXX that I am thinking that the work order is actually complete and that the XXXX is only the date that US Bank is planning on getting back to me. I also told her that I believed that this will simply continue until I get a job at XXXX or US Bank and physically hit the delete key myself. I told her that my efforts to upload the letter with a US Bank letterhead to XXXX obviously did not work in my favor despite the fact that it states that XXXX and XXXX were current. I asked if XXXX was prohibited from allowing me to speak with a Supervisor. She indicated that she is not prohibited and put me on hold. At this point, 25 minutes had passed. XXXX came back on the line and said that she has a rep on the line and was just going over details with that person. Then XXXX came on the line. She said she is brought up to speed. She referenced the letter from the XXXX. She said that there is a lot of mis-communication going on and that the letter that was drafted was not clear. Our call got dropped somehow. It came back to XXXX and she worked to get XXXX back on the line. She also confirmed my cell if the call got dropped. XXXX was no longer available. A new person XXXX ID-XXXX, I mentioned to her that I have a Word document that goes all the way back to XX/XX/XXXX. He was confirming that they sent a letter on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX noting that XXXX was current. I let him know that XXXX is the main issue, not XXXX. I went on a long historical rant. XXXX now better understood what was up. He agreed that XXXX were correct. Please correct the credit report. He made these notes. I asked if there was a training issue with his team. He said that it would be a mis-interpretation. He said that he may have used his tools better to correct this issue. He said he can not rush this order. He said he tried in the past and it has gotten kicked back. He said he could issue a free-form letter that helps clear up this issue that I could send to the Credit Bureau myself. I said I would like that. He said it would be emailed and mailed to me. It is hoped that his new notes would improve the odds of this getting corrected at the credit bureau. Our conversation has now crossed the one-hour mark ending at XXXX. There are 3 orders open, - credit report correction, the letter, and a rush for the letter to be sent to me. We ended the call at XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-04-16T16:29:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55060","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3213554","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2019-04-16T16:29:43.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She <em>indicated</em> that it was around XX/XX/XXXX. I reminded her that I just received an email this morning <em>indicating</em> that my XXXX file had been updated. The update shows that XX/XX/XXXX is still reporting as being 30 days late. I told XXXX that I am thinking that the work order is actually complete and that the XXXX is <em>only</em> the date that US Bank is planning on getting back to me."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[8.282841,"3213554"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3213557","_score":8.277519,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"General-In XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed a 30 late payment to my mortgage company that had been on my credit report since XX/XX/XXXX. I filed a dispute. The incorrect info was deleted from my account. Then a late payment suddenly showed up under that same account for XX/XX/XXXX. I filed a new dispute. XXXX XXXX agrees that the XX/XX/XXXX payment should NOT be recognized as late. They submitted pertinent info to Experian, but the mark still exists. I have been working on getting this corrected for over 2 months now. NO LUCK. I have been typing \" real time '' notes of individuals I have spoke with from XXXX XXXX. The notes are listed below. There are other calls that I have made to Experian as well. \n\nXXXX XXXX Conversation Regarding information that shows on my credit file. \nCalled XXXX XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX During lunch Call began at XXXX XXXX. I spoke with XXXX ( could not give his last name ) ID # XXXX. The conversation lasted 1 hour and 14 minutes ( see image below ). I described my issue which surrounds two negative entries to my credit file for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I explained that I filed a dispute with Experian in late XX/XX/XXXX. I explained further that the results came back that the XXXX entry was incorrect, and now shows to be on time and NOT late. \nI explained that the XXXX payment still remains. I also explained that now my credit report displays that XXXX of that same year was supposedly late. One of my questions was this ; What caused the XXXX report to be originally filed as late and also, since I filed the dispute, how did they find the error? XXXX explained that the payment was processed on the XX/XX/XXXX, well within the month. I made sure to explain that I got a second mortgage in XXXX and that I paid a higher interest rate due to the XXXX error. He said he would put in a work order to find out. \nWe then discussed the XXXX payment ( which I believe shows as a XXXX entry ), he said that the payment should have an effective date of XX/XX/XXXX. The payment was processed a few days into XXXX, but that is just typical processing. The date that matters is the date the payment was called in which was the XXXX. I stressed to XXXX that I would like to have someone ( like a Supervisor ) take a look at the same information that XXXX has visibility to and see if they can have it removed quickly as I am trying to get a loan. He said that he has put in a work order to have this looked at, but he agreed to speak with his supervisor to see if a rush could be put on it. I asked him if he sees anything that should cause XXXX to have been added. He said he did not. \nXXXX took down my email address and said that I will receive a response once the Customer Research Department finds out why XXXX was originally reported as late ( 3 years ago ) and also what was the actual error that was discovered that allowed them to delete the negative information from my credit file once I disputed the item. The other information that this team will report to me, is the reason for determining that XXXX would need to be reported as 30 days late despite the fact that the effective date should show as XX/XX/XXXX. \nCalled XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX After Lunch Spoke with XXXX ID # XXXX I explained to XXXX the conversation I had with XXXX one week prior. I asked her if she was able to retrieve the notes of that conversation. She did find the Work Order that XXXX initiated. She described that the notes show that it was expected to be completed by XX/XX/XXXX ( yesterday ). I asked her if she had visibility to review the alleged late payment from XXXX ( Reported in XXXX ) of  XXXX. She went into the system and was unable to see that same info or go back far enough. \nShe said she would reach out to the Investigation Team to see what was happening presently with the research. She put me on hold and reached out to the team. She came back on the line indicating that there is a letter that is scheduled to be sent out to me. Then she read the letter to me. The letter indicated that the XXXX Payment ( Reported in XXXX ) will be reported to the credit bureaus that it was NOT late. I asked XXXX about her thoughts that I had to endure a 30-day late payment on my credit history for a total of 3 years. She said she felt bad and completely understood how I would likely feel. \nAfter reading the letter, I asked XXXX if she had any additional information regarding the removal of the XX/XX/XXXX error. She did not find any information that described details on the XXXX XXXX   error from XX/XX/XXXX. I requested that she ensures that the already completed letter be sent to me as soon as possible, but that the Research Committee continue to review the XX/XX/XXXX error and follow-up with a letter when complete. I stressed that even if they were unable to uncover the true reason for the error, that they still supply a plausible reason for the error. XXXX indicated that she would be willing to enter a Work-order to have that investigation and letter supplied to me. She did take a moment to ask the Investigation Department if they could think of a possible reason to explain this. She said that they indicated that it is possible that if it were a phone payment, it could have been misapplied. Another possible reason is that the computer system could have caused the error. \nReceived Email with Letter from XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX The letter was brief, with a couple of details. It mentioned that back in XX/XX/XXXX, the payment transaction went through on the XXXX of the following month. It was reported late to the credit bureau, but was then corrected, acknowledging that the effective date was the XXXX of the necessary month. At that time ( if I understand it correctly ), the credit bureau was notified that the late payment entry should be removed. This did not, however, explain why in XX/XX/XXXX, when I filed a dispute, did the XXXX late payment once again show up on my credit file. I had made a previous request to XXXX and XXXX at XXXX XXXX about this. \nThis letter also made a brief note that the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX   records did not indicate that this payment was late. I was having trouble trying to understand why it would show up on my credit file which I have a copy ( and screenshot ) of. As a reminder, when I filed the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, the determination was made that XXXX should have not been on my record ( for the past three years ). As a result of that dispute and determination, the XXXX late payment record was removed from my credit file. In my previous conversations with XXXX and XXXX, I requested from both of them that I needed answers in a couple areas. 1. I needed to know why XXXX had been listed as a late payment since XXXX. I also wanted to know what work was done to determine that it should be removed after I filed my dispute. 2. How did XX/XX/XXXX all of a sudden show up on my credit report as being 30 days late. This hadnt been reported previously, meaning since XX/XX/XXXX. How did my dispute of XX/XX/XXXX prompt a review/discovery/change to XX/XX/XXXX? I wanted to know how this happened. Was this a manual discovery or a computer discovery? The main takeaway here is that the letter I received did not spell out why these things happened. As a result, I called XXXX XXXX on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX. \nCalled XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX. I explained that I had just received a letter from XXXX XXXX with intentions of explaining that the XX/XX/XXXX payment was originally entered as late in XXXX, but soon after, corrected. I also spoke with her about the statement in the letter about XXXX. I requested that XXXX pull up the same letter if it were available. She did find the letter and we talked through it. She understood my concern when I explained how I did not get all of the answers that I was looking for as previously requested to XXXX and XXXX. XXXX also found those historical conversation/notes in my file. She agreed that I deserve an explanation on why the XXXX and XXXX errors happened. She told me that she would file a request that someone work to find out why this happened and send me a letter explaining this. I reminded her that I made this similar request to XXXX and also XXXX. XXXX said that it is possible that someone was still working on that letter but that her request would hopefully prompt them to complete this task. I asked her how long it would take for the credit bureau to get an update on the XXXX error. She stated that it was reported on XX/XX/XXXX and the correction to my file ( at the credit bureau ) should happen very soon. I told her that I would allow a short period of time to pass in anticipation of the letter explaining the details of the errors and would call back at a later time. We ended the conversation with that. \nCalled XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX # XXXX. I explained the situation in brief and that I am curious why my Experian credit file still shows that the letter was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. He described that they also sent a copy to the credit bureau and should have arrived by XX/XX/XXXX. I explained that the missing information ( not contained in the letter ) surrounds my request to know WHY this happened in the first place. That is, how XXXX had originally been added and how XXXX was added later. He said that he needed to escalate the call to a higher authority. I was put on hold. Then XXXX # XXXX came on the line. I explained to her that I am seeking a letter to explain what had happened in XX/XX/XXXX that caused an inaccurate reporting to the credit bureau as well as the removal of that month after I disputed it, but the XX/XX/XXXX getting added as a late pmt. to the credit bureau. That caused me to do more work in disputing that month as well. I am also wondering whether or not the credit bureau has been notified. I asked WHICH ONES were notified. She took a brief timeout to read the notes listed in the file. I was put on hold. When she came back on the line, she mentioned that it was quite a long file and that she was still reading the notes. I told her that it was totally fine and that I would wait. Then she came back on the line and said that the correction letters were not detailed at all. She said that she was going to request that the investigation team dig into this and supply a letter. I explained that she is now # 4 on the list that would work to get this info. I asked how it would be possible for her to make this happen. I said I was worried that 6 months from now I would be talking to the 22nd person that would be making a similar promise. I asked her if she understood my concern. She said she looked at the names and recognized some of them. She said that she has a bit more experience than them and wanted to really get to the root cause. She then said she needed to put me on a brief hold. She came back on the line and said, it appears that they are NOT going to explain why it happened. They did not say why they would supply that information. She said that they always notify all 3. She said that the info has already been sent, but its a problem that they told them that XXXX should be listed as correct but NOT XXXX. I explained that the law only provides a certain amount of time. She said that as of today, the credit bureau does NOT know that XXXX needs to be removed. I said that I was trying to get a loan and that my interest rates would be higher as a result of this problem. I asked if, due to this clumsy error, this could be escalated and that the credit bureaus could be notified quickly. We both concluded that they do not yet know that XXXX needs to be removed. I could hear in the background her typing very quickly. She put me on hold once again. She came back on the line and said she is looking at the notes. She said that she was hoping it would get accomplished by XX/XX/XXXX. I said thats a huge delay. She said someone would get an email to rush this. I asked if I could get an email. I asked if the letter could be emailed once its complete. She put in the request. I told her that XXXX XXXX did this very same thing last time. We discovered that that the error was telling XXXX XXXX that XXXX needed be cleared, and not XXXX like it should have been. She went back into her system to look at XX/XX/XXXX and it shows that XXXX was not late. I explained that for the past 3 years, neither XXXX or XXXX has shown to be late on my credit file. It was only added just a couple months ago. I told her that if she looked at that same file 3 months ago, XXXX would NOT show as late. She said she would leave this urgent request open to have this investigated. We ended the call after a total of 59 minutes and 51 seconds. \n\n\n\nCalled XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with mortgage dept. I asked to be connected with the research department that was working on my file. The assistant put me on hold, then came back on the line to say that she was checking into it. Her name was XXXX ID XXXX. I explained that I was hoping to get an update on where the Investigation Team was at with my file. She said that the file had not yet been updated and that they were still working on it. I asked from her working history if she could tell if there was actually a difference between something that was put on rush vs something like this that was handled in a normal fashion. She indicated that this was the first time she had seen something be put on rush. I told her I would probably just wait until Monday to call back. She said that she was actually going to suggest the same thing. I thanked her and we ended the call. \n\nI received a letter from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. It was dated XX/XX/XXXX. It states that the XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX installments reflect as current. \nI spoke with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ID XXXX I asked her to pull up the letter I just received. She read the letter and did not comment. Went back to review the pmt. history. She commented that XXXX was actually late. I made her aware of the effective date. \nI asked her to re-read the letter. She agreed that it seems to read that XXXX and XXXX were current. \nAt this point I am unsure what the credit bureau has on file. \nShe said she needed a moment to check on something. I was put on hold. She came back on the line stating that she spoke with a Supervisor and that XXXX and XXXX are considered on time from a XXXX XXXX standpoint. She said it could take up to 30 days for the credit bureaus to update their files. \nIt is interesting to note that it states that they submitted a correction for XXXX when XXXX is actually the problem. Why would this letter state that information submitted is accurate when they had to make a correction for XXXX? \n\nXX/XX/XXXX After sending the letter ( stating XXXX and XXXX current ) to Experian, I called XXXX XXXX once again. Spoke with XXXX ID # XXXX. I described the issue. She confirmed that XX/XX/XXXX was received on time. She said the file was closed. I told her that XXXX STILL remains at Experian. I explained my frustration. She said she was going to get a member of Senior Management on the line. There was a brief pause. When she came back on the line, she said that they spoke senior management and also their supervisor. They reviewed my situation and said that the case will be reopened and that there will be a rush placed on this order. I asked her what the difference in timing would be when something is place on a rush status. She said that the Supervisor has 24 hours to look into this. She said she asked them if they could call Experian direct and they said the system does not work that way. She said she would call me back on Monday to give me the results. Once again, she went on to explain that the XX/XX/XXXX payment shows as NOT being late. I will wait for the call. \n\n\nCalled XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with the mortgage dept. I asked them if they had an update on my file. The person I spoke with an individual named XXXX ID XXXX to see what the status was on their end. I shared that I received an email from Experian stating that my file had been updated. This was unfortunate because it is incorrect. She stated that it has been reported to Experian that the file was correct. I asked her to read the letter that XXXX XXXX sent to me suggesting that both XXXX and XXXX were made on time. She found and read the letter agreeing with this fact. XXXX explained that XXXX XXXX has until the XXXX to finalize the work order. I asked when the last time was that XXXX XXXX spoke with Experian. She indicated that it was around XX/XX/XXXX. I reminded her that I just received an email this morning indicating that my Experian file had been updated. The update shows that XX/XX/XXXX is still reporting as being 30 days late. I told XXXX that I am thinking that the work order is actually complete and that the XXXX is only the date that XXXX XXXX is planning on getting back to me. I also told her that I believed that this will simply continue until I get a job at Experian or XXXX XXXX and physically hit the delete key myself. I told her that my efforts to upload the letter with a XXXX XXXX letterhead to Experian obviously did not work in my favor despite the fact that it states that XXXX and XXXX were current. I asked if XXXX was prohibited from allowing me to speak with a Supervisor. She indicated that she is not prohibited and put me on hold. At this point, 25 minutes had passed. XXXX came back on the line and said that she has a rep on the line and was just going over details with that person. Then XXXX came on the line. She said she is brought up to speed. She referenced the letter from the XXXX. She said that there is a lot of mis-communication going on and that the letter that was drafted was not clear. Our call got dropped somehow. It came back to XXXX and she worked to get XXXX back on the line. She also confirmed my cell if the call got dropped. XXXX was no longer available. A new person XXXX ID-XXXX, I mentioned to her that I have a Word document that goes all the way back to XX/XX/XXXX. He was confirming that they sent a letter on XX/XX/XXXX to Experian noting that XXXX was current. I let him know that XXXX is the main issue, not XXXX. I went on a long historical rant. XXXX now better understood what was up. He agreed that XX/XX/XXXX/XX/XX/XXXX were correct. Please correct the credit report. He made these notes. I asked if there was a training issue with his team. He said that it would be a mis-interpretation. He said that he may have used his tools better to correct this issue. He said he can not rush this order. He said he tried in the past and it has gotten kicked back. He said he could issue a free-form letter that helps clear up this issue that I could send to the Credit Bureau myself. I said I would like that. He said it would be emailed and mailed to me. It is hoped that his new notes would improve the odds of this getting corrected at the credit bureau. Our conversation has now crossed the one-hour mark ending at XXXX. There are 3 orders open, - credit report correction, the letter, and a rush for the letter to be sent to me. We ended the call at XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-04-16T16:29:34.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55060","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3213557","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2019-04-16T16:14:38.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She <em>indicated</em> that it was around XX/XX/XXXX. I reminded her that I just received an email this morning <em>indicating</em> that my Experian file had been updated. The update shows that XX/XX/XXXX is still reporting as being 30 days late. I told XXXX that I am thinking that the work order is actually complete and that the XXXX is <em>only</em> the date that XXXX XXXX is planning on getting back to me."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[8.277519,"3213557"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9281043","_score":8.193649,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Iowa XXXX Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation regarding a retail installment agreement I signed on XX/XX/XXXX, to obtain a XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX for personal, family, and household purposes. After careful review of the agreement, I have discovered several violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) as well as counts of fraud, which I believe violate consumer protection laws overseen by the CFPB. \n\nDetails of the Transaction : On XX/XX/XXXX, I visited XXXXXXXX XXXX Dealerships and entered into a retail installment agreement to purchase a XXXX XXXX XXXX for the initial price of {$22000.00}. The dealership added {$4400.00} in fees, which increased the starting price to {$26000.00}. Additionally, the dealer mandated an excessive interest rate of 14.630 %, claiming that this was the only financing option available to me. They also charged an extra {$13000.00} in undisclosed fees, bringing the total cost of the vehicle to {$40000.00}, minus a {$790.00} down payment that the dealer claimed was required by the bank. \n\nMoreover, the dealership misrepresented my credit score, stating that it was XXXX when, in fact, my actual credit score was XXXX. This misrepresentation was used to discriminate in the form of the higher interest rate. These actions by the dealership raise significant concerns about the transparency and fairness of the transaction, as well as potential violations of consumer protection laws such as ( TILA ) : Failure to Disclose Accurate Terms : TILA requires that lenders provide clear and accurate information about the terms and costs of credit. Doesnt misrepresenting a consumer 's credit score to justify a higher interest rate violate the transparency required under TILA?\n\nUnfair or Deceptive Practices : TILA prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in lending. Isnt it true that knowingly using and presenting false credit score information to charge an excessive interest rate is considered fraud, deception, discrimination and an unfair practice? \n\nViolations of the retail installment agreement : TILA : Failure to Disclose Accurate Terms : Finance Charge Misrepresentation : The finance charge and annual percentage rate ( APR ) were not accurately disclosed, as required by TILA. The dealer misrepresented the interest rate and failed to include all fees in the finance charge. \nCitation : \" ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE The cost of your credit as a yearly rate '' ( Page 1 ) Improper Disclosure of Fees : The additional {$20000.00} in fees was not properly disclosed, constituting a violation of TILAs disclosure requirements.\n\nCitation : \" FINANCE CHARGE The dollar amount the credit will cost you '' ( Page 1 ) Misleading Interest Rate Information : The dealer 's assertion that I had to accept a 15 % interest rate without offering alternatives or proper justification is misleading and fraudulent. \nUnlawful Fees : The excessive {$20000.00} in fees, which were not disclosed or justified under TILA, are deceptive and fraudulent.\n\nDisclosure of TotaXXXX of Payments : The total amount of payments over the life of the loan must be disclosed accurately. Errors or omissions in this disclosure are violations. \nCitation : \" Total of Payments The amount you will have paid when you have made all scheduled payments '' ( Page 1 ) Disclosure of Payment Schedule : The payment schedule, including the number, amounts, and due dates of payments, must be accurately disclosed. Misleading or incomplete information is a violation. \nCitation : \" Payment Schedule Number of Payments Amount of Each Payment '' ( Page 1 ) Disclosure of Total Sale Price : The total sale price, including the cost of the vehicle and all finance charges, must be disclosed accurately.\n\nCitation : \" ITEMIZATION OF AMOUNT FINANCED General Terms ; Payments : You have been given the opportunity to purchase the Vehicle and any other products and services identified in this agreement for the Total Sale Price. '' ( Page 4 ) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAP ) : Misrepresentation of Credit Score and Interest Rate : The dealership provided false information about my credit score, stating it was XXXX when it was actually XXXX, to justify a higher interest rate of 15 %. This also seems to be a violation of ECOA.\n\nUnnecessary Add-ons Without Consent : The addition of a pre-delivery service fee, a warranty, XXXX coverage, and XXXX without XXXX knowledge or consent. \n\nExcessive Fees : Overcharging an extra {$20000.00} in fees beyond finance charge. \n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Harassment or Abuse ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ) : Repeatedly contacting me with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass, and using language that could be seen as threatening or oppressive.\n\nFalse or Misleading Representations ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ) : Making false representations about the debt, such as the amount owed or the consequences of non-payment, and threatening legal action that they may not be entitled to take.\n\nUnfair Practices ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f ) : Using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the debt, such as misrepresenting the status of the debt or the consequences of non-payment. \n\n\nAction That I took : Upon discovering violations of TILA, FDCPA and ECOA, I immediately took action. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent Bridgecrest a debt validation letter ( Exhibit D ), an Affidavit of Truth ( Exhibit A ), a cease and desist notice ( Exhibit C ), and a right of rescission notice ( Exhibit B ). \n\nRight to Rescind : As part of my actions, I exercised my right to rescind parts of the credit transaction due to fraudulent and deceptive practices involved via certified mail with a green return receipt ( Exhibit E & E2 ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received Bridgecrests response ( Exhibit F ), which stated that they assumed the debt to be valid based on bank statements and terms in the agreement. However, Bridgecrest failed to provide the information I requested, which is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) - Validation of Debts. According to this section, if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days of receiving the initial communication, the debt collector must cease collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt. This verification must include the amount of the debt, the name of the right to the name of the original creditor, and a copy of the original contract or a judgment. If the debt collector fails to provide this information and continues collection efforts, they are in violation of this provision. Furthermore, isnt it true that only the consumer upon receiving the requested information, can validate that it is a true and accurate representation of the transaction? Also, does fraud of this type cancel the entire transaction as though it never happened? \n\nIn response to Bridgecrest 's inadequate reply, on XX/XX/XXXX, I sent them a cease and desist/verification letter ( Exhibit G ) and an invoice ( Exhibit H ) via certified mail with a green return receipt ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). I requested that Bridgecrest cease all collection activities related to this alleged debt and any attempts to steal my vehicle. Additionally, I requested, for the second time, that they provide me with the name and address of the original creditor, which they failed to do. \n\nIncluded below are all exhibits detailing the specific violations and the location of the proof of my claim. \n\nBridgecrest 's Response : XX/XX/XXXX Bridgecrest responded with a letter ( Exhibit I ) to the recent letters I sent on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit G & Exhibit H ). The letter from Bridgecrest contains several violations and issues under TILA, FDCPA, and ECOA. These include failure to provide accurate disclosures, misleading representations, inadequate debt validation, and potential discrimination based on credit score misrepresentation. Bridgecrests failure to address these issues adequately and their continued collection efforts despite a cease and desist notice further exacerbate these violations. \n\nViolations and Issues in the Letter Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violations : Failure to Provide Accurate Disclosures : The letter does not address the allegation of misrepresented credit score and undisclosed fees, which are violations of TILA 's requirement for accurate disclosures. TILA mandates that creditors provide clear and accurate information about the terms of credit, including the Annual Percentage Rate ( APR ), finance charges, and total amount financed. \nUnlawful Fees : The letter does not address the {$13000.00} in undisclosed fees, a significant violation under TILA, as all fees must be clearly disclosed at the time of the agreement.\n\nMisleading Information : By not responding adequately to the allegations of a misrepresented credit score and excessive interest rate, the letter implicitly confirms these issues, which are violations of TILA 's requirement for clear and truthful disclosures. \nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Violations : Harassment or Abuse ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ) : If Bridgecrest continued to contact me despite the cease and desist letter, this is a violation of FDCPA, which prohibits any form of harassment or abuse.\n\nFalse or Misleading Representations ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ) : The letter could be considered misleading by failing to acknowledge the misrepresented credit score and undisclosed fees. Misleading a debtor about the nature or amount of the debt violates FDCPA. \n\nFailure to Validate Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ) : Bridgecrests response failed to adequately validate the debt as required under FDCPA. They did not provide sufficient documentation proving the debt 's legitimacy, including a copy of the original contract.\n\nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) Violations : Discrimination Based on Credit Score : By misrepresenting my credit score to justify a higher interest rate, Bridgecrest potentially violated ECOA, which prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction. \nFailure to Provide Adverse Action Notice : If Bridgecrest used my misrepresented XXXX XXXX to impose a higher interest rate, they should have provided a notice of adverse action explaining the reasons, which is required under ECOA.\n\nSpecific Issues with Bridgecrest 's Letter Denial of Rescission Rights : Unjust Denial : Bridgecrest denied my right to rescind the contract based on an arbitrary timeline that does not consider the fraudulent nature of the transaction. Under TILA, consumers have the right to rescind a transaction if it involves fraud or deception.\n\nInadequate Response to Fraud Allegations : Bridgecrests letter fails to address the core issue of fraud, including the misrepresented credit score and undisclosed fees, which can invalidate the contract terms. \nLack of Compliance with FDCPA Requirements : Inadequate Debt Validation : Bridgecrests response did not comply with the FDCPAs requirement for debt validation. They should have provided a detailed account of the debt, including the original contract and proof of the debt 's validity. \nIgnoring Cease and Desist : If Bridgecrest continued collection efforts after receiving my cease and desist notice, they are in violation of FDCPA, which prohibits further contact except under specific circumstances. \n\nFailure to Address ECOA Violations : Discrimination Ignored : The letter ignores my claim of discrimination based on a falsely low credit score, which is a direct violation of ECOA.\n\nLack of Adverse Action Notice : If Bridgecrest took adverse action ( e.g., imposing a higher interest rate ) based on a misrepresented credit score, they failed to provide the necessary adverse action notice, violating ECOA.\n\nConclusion The letter from Bridgecrest contains several violations and issues under TILA, FDCPA, and ECOA. These include failure to provide accurate disclosures, misleading representations, inadequate debt validation, and potential discrimination based on credit score misrepresentation. Bridgecrests failure to address these issues adequately and their continued collection efforts despite a cease and desist notice further exacerbate these violations. \n\nBridgecrest 's Response : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another response from Bridgecrest ( Exhibit K ). The document Bridgecrest sent was identical to their first response ( Exhibit F ). This response letter again stated that the debt is still assumed valid based on bank statements and a copy of the agreement. Once again, Bridgecrest ignored my verification request, demonstrating a clear pattern of unprofessional behavior. \n\nViolations : 1. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violations : Failure to Provide Accurate Disclosures : The letter does not address the allegations of a misrepresented credit score and undisclosed fees, which TILA mandates must be clearly and accurately disclosed. \nUnlawful Fees : The letter fails to acknowledge the {$13000.00} in undisclosed fees, violating TILAs requirement for transparency. \n2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Violations : Failure to Validate Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ) : Bridgecrest did not provide sufficient documentation proving the debt 's legitimacy, such as the original contract, which is required under FDCPA. They continued collection efforts without validating the debt as requested. \nFalse or Misleading Representations ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ) : The letter can be considered misleading for not addressing the misrepresented credit score and undisclosed fees.\n\n3. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) Violations : Discrimination Based\non Credit Score : By not addressing the misrepresented credit score, Bridgecrest potentially violated ECOA, which prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction.\n\nFailure to Provide Adverse Action Notice : If the misrepresented credit score was used to impose a higher interest rate, Bridgecrest should have provided a notice of adverse action explaining the reasons, as required under ECOA. \n\nBridgecrest 's repeated failure to address these critical issues and provide the requested verification not only underscores their non-compliance with these consumer protection laws but also highlights their unprofessional conduct. Ignoring verification requests and repeatedly sending identical responses demonstrate a lack of respect for the consumer 's rights and concerns. Such behavior undermines trust and indicates a disregard for proper customer service and legal obligations. \n\nBridgecrest 's Notice : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Bridgecrest ( Exhibit L ) stating that if I do not pay them {$1100.00} by XXXX, they will repossess my vehicle, which is essential for my family and me. Upon reading this letter, I felt very threatened and unsafe. Bridgecrest has knowingly and willingly ignored my cease and desist request, demanding money from me and threatening to take away my only transportation for my family of four, even though I informed them that I have one-week-old twins, a one-year-old, and a wife who needs to attend doctor appointments, and that I have to work every day of the week. Bridgecrest has shown no concern, which made me worry even more for my familys well-being.\n\nViolations Committed by Bridgecrest : 1. **Ignoring the Cease and Desist Request** : Despite receiving my cease and desist request, Bridgecrest continued to contact me, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ), which states that if a consumer requests that a debt collector cease communication, the collector must comply.\n\n2. **Failure to Validate Debt** : By not adequately addressing my verification requests and continuing to demand payment, Bridgecrest violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), which requires debt collectors to cease collection efforts until they validate the debt.\n\n3. **Harassment or Abuse** : The threatening tone of the letter and the pressure to pay under threat of repossession can be considered harassment under 15 U.S.C. 1692d, which prohibits any conduct that may harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.\n\nBridgecrests unprofessionalism and the threatening tone of their communication are deeply concerning. Their disregard for my cease and desist request and failure to consider the personal and medical needs of my family reflect a lack of empathy and professionalism. Their aggressive approach, especially given my repeated requests for verification and my communication about the urgent needs of my family, has caused undue stress and concern for our safety and well-being.\n\nDocuments that were Sent and Received : Affidavit of Truth-Exhibit A Detailed under sworn oath, my position and actions.\n\nIncluded exhibits showing where the violations occurred in the agreement.\n\nRight of Rescission Letter-Exhibit B Exercised my right to cancel the agreement within the allowed period.\n\nDetailed my reasons for rescission.\n\nRequested the return of all payments made within 20 days.\n\nCease and Desist Notice-Exhibit C Requested that all future communications be in writing and warned against further telephone contact. \nProvided a list of documents I expected them to send. \nDebt Validation Letter-Exhibit D Citing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, I requested validation and verification of the debt. \nAsked for proof of their authority to collect the debt within 30 days. \nCertified Mail Documentation-Exhibit E & E2 Sent all documents via certified mail ( Tracking # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with a green return receipt ( Tracking # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nBridgecrests response-Exhibit F Response Letter Bank Statements Cease & Desist/Verification-Exhibit G I requested that Bridgecrest cease all collection activities related to this alleged debt and any attempts to steal my vehicle. \nAdditionally, I requested, for the second time, that they provide me with the name and address of the original creditor, which they failed to do. \nInvoice-Exhibit H For 5 violations Total : {$5000.00} Bridgecrests response-Exhibit I Response Letter Copy of the agreement Certified Mail Documentation-Exhibit J & J2 Sent all documents via certified mail ( Tracking # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with a green return receipt ( Tracking # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nBridgecrest 's Response-Exhibit K Response Letter Bank Statements Bridgecrest 's Notice-Exhibit L Notice of Right To Cure and Intent To Repossess Personal Impact : As a new father with a XXXX XXXXr and XXXX XXXX as of XX/XX/XXXX, it is paramount that Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation refrain from jeopardizing my ability to fulfill my responsibilities, care for my family, and ensure our overall well-being. My primary concerns are : Disruptive and Threatening Phone Calls : Receiving phone calls at any time of day or night demanding payment of the alleged debt is both inconvenient and distressing. Such intrusive communications are unacceptable and contribute to unnecessary stress for both my spouse and me, disrupting our ability to care for our children and manage our daily lives. \n\nStress-Inducing Written Requests : Bridgecrests practice of sending threatening written demands for payment is a significant source of anxiety. These communications not only cause emotional distress but also undermine our sense of security and stability during this critical period of caring for our newborns and toddler. \n\nThreats of Vehicle XXXX : Attempts by Bridgecrest to seize our vehicle, which is essential for our daily transportation needs and primarily located on private property, are deeply concerning. The vehicle is vital for taking my wife and children to medical appointments, ensuring I can get to work, and managing our familys day-to-day activities. The threat of repossession exacerbates our stress levels and poses a direct risk to our ability to function effectively as a family unit. \n\nViolations and Unprofessional Conduct : Ignoring Cease and Desist Requests : Despite my formal request for Bridgecrest to cease all communication, they have persisted, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ). This statute mandates that debt collectors must stop contacting a consumer if requested in writing.\n\nHarassment or Abuse : The nature of Bridgecrests communication, including the threatening tone and persistence despite my cease and desist request, constitutes harassment under 15 U.S.C. 1692d. This provision prohibits conduct that may harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. \n\nProfessionalism and Tone : Bridgecrests unprofessional behavior and aggressive tone are highly concerning. Their failure to respect my cease and desist request, coupled with their lack of consideration for the personal and medical needs of my family, reflects a troubling disregard for basic professional standards and empathy. Their actions have caused significant emotional distress and have undermined our sense of security and stability during a critical time for my family. Such behavior is unacceptable and must be addressed to prevent further harm to our well-being. \n\nRequested Actions : Order to Rescind the Credit Transaction : Due to the fraudulent and deceptive practices involved, I request that the credit transaction related to the fraudulent aspects of the agreement be rescinded. \n\nOrder to Rescind/Revoke the Security Interest : I request that the security interest held by Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation in the XXXX XXXX XXXX be revoked/rescinded. \n\nOrder to provide Compensation : I request substantial compensation for the extensive violations of consumer protection laws and the severe distress they have caused. Specifically, I am seeking {$25000.00} in compensation for the profound mental and emotional anguish inflicted upon me. The relentless harassment, threats, and unfair treatment have caused immeasurable stress, affecting my ability to work and care for my family. In addition to this monetary compensation, I also demand the title to my vehicle. This is crucial to ensure that I am no longer subjected to the undue stress and financial hardship that Bridgecrest 's actions have imposed on me and my family. \n\nI have enclosed copies of the relevant documents for your review, labeled as Exhibits A through Exhibit L. \nEnclosures : Exhibit A : Affidavit of Truth Exhibit B : Right of Rescission Letter Exhibit C : Cease and Desist Letter Exhibit D : Debt Validation Letter Certified Mail Documentation-Exhibit E & E2 Bridgecrests response-Exhibit F Cease & Desist/Verification-Exhibit G Invoice-Exhibit H Bridgecrests response-Exhibit I Certified Mail Documentation-Exhibit J & J2 Bridgecrest 's Response-Exhibit K Bridgecrest 's Notice-Exhibit L Exhibit M : Copy of Retail Installment Agreement Additionally, I would appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide me in addressing this matter and obtaining the resolution I require from Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation if you are unable to grant my requests. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and action on this issue. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX : The Honorable XXXX XXXX, Office of the Attorney General State of Florida XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Federal Trade Commission, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-17T06:46:21.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"32780","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9281043","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2024-06-17T06:28:01.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bridgecrest 's <em>Response</em> : XX/XX/XXXX Bridgecrest responded with a letter ( Exhibit I ) to the recent <em>letters</em> I sent on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit G & Exhibit H ). The letter from Bridgecrest contains several violations and issues <em>under</em> TILA, FDCPA, and ECOA. These include failure to provide accurate disclosures, misleading representations, inadequate debt validation, and potential discrimination based on credit score misrepresentation."]},"sort":[8.193649,"9281043"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":39,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":39}]}},"product":{"doc_count":39,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":14,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":14}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Check cashing service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":39,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":3},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":2},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to open an account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":39,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":38},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":39,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":31},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":39,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":39}]}},"company":{"doc_count":39,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ditech Financial LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":39,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":9},{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":4},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"LA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":39,"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":20},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":39,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American","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":{"2":[8.193649,"9281043"]}}}