{"took":119,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":9,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22962874","_score":20.911715,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against BMO Bank for a series of severe billing errors, systemic failures, and violations of consumer protection laws under Regulation E.\n\n1. Erroneous Debit : I recently paid off my BMO auto loan account in full. Despite the account being closed and fully satisfied, BMO erroneously initiated an unauthorized ACH automatic debit of {$300.00} from my XXXX checking account on XX/XX/year>. \n\n2. Deceptive/Incompetent Guidance : When I contacted BMO to reverse their error, their customer service explicitly instructed me to contact XXXX to place a stop-payment/dispute on the {$300.00} transaction, rather than initiating an internal reversal. I followed BMOs instructions.\n\n3. Lost Funds ( {$24.00} ) : Simultaneously, I executed a legitimate online transfer of {$24.00} from my BMO checking to my XXXX checking account. Due to the stop-payment block caused by BMO 's prior error, this {$24.00} transfer became trapped in transit. The funds were successfully deducted from my BMO balance but never reached XXXX. \n\n4. Denial of Service : When I attempted to contact BMO via their secure chat platform on XX/XX/year>, to request an ACH trace on my missing {$24.00}, the live agent ( XXXX XXXX ) completely abandoned the chat session without responding, leaving me with no way to resolve the missing funds.\n\nBMOs administrative failures have resulted in the loss of my funds and caused significant financial distress. I demand that BMO immediately trace the missing {$24.00}, credit it back to my account, and review their auto-loop closure systems to prevent further unauthorized debits.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-06T16:03:13.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"53092","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22962874","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-06-06T15:52:06.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with paying off the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing a formal complaint against BMO Bank for a <em>series</em> of severe billing <em>errors</em>, <em>systemic</em> <em>failures</em>, and violations of consumer protection laws under Regulation E.\n\n1. Erroneous Debit : I recently paid off my BMO auto loan account in full. Despite the account being closed and fully satisfied, BMO erroneously initiated an unauthorized ACH automatic debit of {$300.00} from my XXXX checking account on XX/XX/year>. \n\n2."]},"sort":[20.911715,"22962874"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18961827","_score":14.572927,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint to formally report a serious fraud incident involving my Citibank account ending in XXXX, in which I was coerced under false pretenses into withdrawing and transferring {$21000.00}. This loss was not the result of ordinary consumer error, but rather a series of systemic failures by Citibank in safeguarding my account, responding to clear fraud indicators, and following required security and teller protocols. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I began receiving spoofed phone calls that appeared to originate directly from Citibanks fraud department. These callers possessed highly specific personal and account information that I never provided to theminformation that should have been accessible only to Citibank. When I attempted to verify the calls by dialing the number on the back of my debit card, the call was routed back to these same individuals. On XX/XX/year>, when I attempted to call Citibank again, I received an automated message stating that Citibank could not take my call at that time. \n\nUnder the belief that I was assisting Citibank with an internal fraud investigation, I was instructed to go to the Citibank branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, CA, on the morning of XX/XX/year>, to attempt withdrawals. At that time, my account had already been flagged for suspicious activity for approximately 48 hours. My debit card had been locked, there had been unauthorized attempts to change my online access credentials, suspicious payees had been added, and unusual login activity had occurred from multiple new devices.\n\nDespite these clear and significant fraud indicators, the branch teller and branch manager allowed me to withdraw large sums of money without meaningful questioning, escalation, or enhanced verification. The teller even instructed me to re-enter information in response to an automated Citibank email prompt instead of halting the transaction. The manager ultimately approved the withdrawal despite the high-risk nature of the activity and the multiple red flags already present on my account.\n\nImmediately after the withdrawal, I was coerced into handing over the funds to individuals outside the branch, including a man driving a XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claimed to be with Citibank. I was falsely told that my account had already been reimbursed and that I would see the funds restored once my new debit card arrived. Following this, multiple wire transfers were initiated to an unknown individual, effectively emptying the remaining funds in my account.\n\nCitibanks failures continued even after I reported the fraud. When I called to block my account, Citibank only locked my debit card and left my checking account active. As a result, on XX/XX/year>, multiple loans were attempted to be opened using my account. I had to call again on XX/XX/year>, to have the entire account properly locked. Additionally, I received delayed fraud alerts due to spoofing and interception tactics, leaving me without timely or effective warning from Citibank during a critical period.\n\nThis incident reflects multiple institutional failures by Citibank, including : 1 ) Failure to protect customer data, as the perpetrators possessed detailed internal account information I never disclosed.\n\n2 ) Failure to stop suspicious account activity, despite numerous security alerts, unauthorized access attempts, and a locked debit card.\n\n3 ) Failure of teller and branch management protocols, by approving high-risk withdrawals without appropriate verification or escalation.\n\n4 ) Failure in account closure procedures, allowing continued exploitation even after fraud was reported.\n\n5 ) Delayed and ineffective fraud notification systems, which left me exposed during an active fraud event.\n\nCitibanks expansion of telebanking and digital services carries an increased responsibility to protect consumers and proactively warn them of emerging fraud risks. In my case, critical guidance and protections were either absent or delayed until after the financial harm had already occurred. This failure represents not only a breach of trust, but a serious breakdown in consumer financial protection that warrants regulatory intervention.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-23T19:16:44.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95621","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18961827","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-23T18:42:11.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This loss was not the result of ordinary consumer <em>error</em>, but <em>rather</em> a <em>series</em> of <em>systemic</em> <em>failures</em> by Citibank in safeguarding my account, responding to clear fraud indicators, and following required security and teller protocols. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I began receiving spoofed phone calls that appeared to originate directly from Citibanks fraud department."]},"sort":[14.572927,"18961827"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21245691","_score":14.219072,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB FORMAL COMPLAINT & NOTICE OF ERROR To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Respondent : Selene Finance LP Subject : Formal Dispute, Rebuttal, and Notice of Error pursuant to 12 CFR 1024.35 old number - Case Reference : XXXX I. Executive Summary I am filing this comprehensive complaint to address a series of systemic servicing failures by Selene Finance LP. These include the failure to honor a documented \" in-flight '' loss mitigation agreement, bad-faith denials of account ownership to regulators, and a severe breach of privacy by mailing my sensitive personal information to an unrelated third party. These actions constitute a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and the California Homeowner Bill of Rights ( HBOR ).\n\nII. Failure to Honor \" In-Flight '' Agreement ( 12 CFR 1024.33 ) Prior to the transfer of my loan, I had a formal, binding agreement with Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) to maintain my account.\n\nTransfer Negligence : Upon transfer, Selene claimed the agreement was \" not visible. '' Their portal restricted my payments to standard amounts only, preventing me from fulfilling the specific agreement terms despite my attempts to comply in good faith.\n\nCoercion : Rather than honoring existing terms, Selene attempted to pressure me into new programs with significantly higher interest rates. Under CFPB Bulletin 2020-02, a transferee servicer must honor existing loss mitigation agreements.\n\nIII. Rebuttal of Selenes Claim of Non-Ownership In a response dated XX/XX/year>, Selene Finance LP claimed to the CFPB that this account \" does not belong to them. '' This is a demonstrable falsehood.\n\nI have received formal transfer documents naming Selene as the servicer.\n\nI have successfully made payments through the Selene portal.\n\nA Selene representative admitted on a recorded line in XX/XX/year> that they recognize the XXXX agreement. \nThis attempt to evade regulatory oversight while simultaneously pursuing foreclosure is an act of gross negligence and bad faith. \n\nIV. Breach of Privacy & Negligent Correspondence On XX/XX/year>, I was contacted by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, CA. They informed me that Selene Finance had \" inadvertently '' mailed my private mortgage correspondence ( dated XX/XX/year> ) to their office instead of my home address. \n\nPrivacy Violation : This is a direct breach of my personal information and financial privacy. ( CFPB Site is not allowing the upload of evidence of documents returned from the receiver, evidence of their letter stating they inadvertently received my mail, the envelope, and the actual letter that they received. I can provide if needed! \n\nDue Process : Selene claimed I was \" non-compliant '' with a deadline in that letter. I could not comply with a notice that was mailed to a stranger in a different city.\n\nV. Illegal Dual-Tracking and XXXX XXXX is engaged in illegal \" Dual-Tracking '' by actively pursuing foreclosure while a valid loss mitigation agreement is in place. \n\nCredit Damage : They continue to report \" late '' payments to bureaus during a period they are legally required to suspend negative reporting ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ( i ) ).\n\nImproper Fees : My account is being assessed thousands of dollars in \" corporate advance '' and foreclosure fees stemming entirely from Selenes failure to recognize the SPS agreement.\n\nVI. Requested Resolution To resolve this matter and avoid further escalation or litigation, I demand the following : Immediate Cease and Desist : Halt all foreclosure activity and provide written confirmation of the stay.\n\nSpecific Performance : Honor the original terms of the SPS agreement. I explicitly reject any \" new '' programs with higher rates.\n\nFinancial Restitution : Backdate all payments to the date of transfer, waive all late/foreclosure fees, and rescind the foreclosure notice.\n\nCredit Correction : Submit a \" Correction of Information '' to all major credit bureaus to delete negative reporting associated with this transfer error. \n\nStatutory Damages : I am seeking a settlement for the significant distress and administrative burden caused by these reckless violations, consistent with XXXX. XXXX. Code XXXX ( b ). \n\nI request that the CFPB compel Selene Finance to provide a digital copy of the misdirected XX/XX/XXXX correspondence and provide a substantive response to these compounded errors within the XXXX regulatory window.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-14T23:28:50.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"94541","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21245691","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Selene Holdings LLC","date_received":"2026-04-14T22:23:34.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB FORMAL COMPLAINT & NOTICE OF <em>ERROR</em> To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Respondent : Selene Finance LP Subject : Formal Dispute, Rebuttal, and Notice of <em>Error</em> pursuant to 12 CFR 1024.35 old number - Case Reference : XXXX I. Executive Summary I am filing this comprehensive complaint to address a <em>series</em> of <em>systemic</em> servicing <em>failures</em> by Selene Finance LP."]},"sort":[14.219072,"21245691"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9700242","_score":13.458053,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a formal complaint against United Wholesale Mortgage / Loan Servicing ( UWM ) XXXX a company that I have found to be incredibly predatory, manipulative, and consistently failing to follow regulatory guidelines. This complaint is detailed, capturing every single issue I have experienced with UWM. \n\nFailure to Meet Response Deadlines I submitted my last mortgage mitigation application on XX/XX/XXXX. UWM failed to respond within the mandated 30-day period, a deadline they have missed not once, not twice, but three or four times previously. This repeated failure to meet the 30-day response deadline is a blatant disregard for the regulatory requirements and demonstrates their negligence. \n\nProof of Submission Included with this complaint, I have provided proof of the tracking information showing the package was shipped to UWM 's office. Additionally, the documents were uploaded electronically to their system, and I have included proof of this as well. \n\nRestrictive and Unreasonable Payment Policies Despite their failure to acknowledge my application, UWM has sent numerous notices such as payment reversals and payment reminders. \n\nThey have placed restrictive conditions on my account, refusing most payment types unless made through certified funds. This requirement forces me to mail payments or pay a {$30.00} wire fee, adding unnecessary financial strain during an already challenging time. \n\nHarassment Through Correspondence From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, UWM sent 16 threatening correspondences about foreclosure and payment sanctions, without any acknowledgment of my assistance request. This constant harassment exacerbates my distress and further complicates my ability to manage my mortgage obligations. \n\nContradictory Responses and Documentation On XX/XX/XXXX, UWM claimed my application documentation was insufficient. The next day, I received another letter, also dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating my application was complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThese contradictory statements are confusing and undermine the credibility of UWM 's processing system. \n\nUnnecessary Appraisal Valuation Despite declaring my application incomplete on XX/XX/XXXX, UWM ordered an appraisal valuation on XX/XX/XXXX. This action is illogical and suggests improper handling of my application. \n\nRejection of Payments I have made efforts to fulfill my payment obligations by sending a certified check, which UWM rejected and returned nearly two weeks later. A representative had indicated that payments would be applied to the outstanding balance once my account was in the loss mitigation department, yet this was not honored. \n\nInsurance Policy Mismanagement On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice claiming my insurance policy had expired, despite it being paid. I promptly sent proof of payment and a copy of the receipt via tracked mail, which is included with this complaint. \n\nErroneous Notices and Threats of Foreclosure XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, UWM notified me that my application was missing documents, despite prior acknowledgment of completion. On XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a notice of default, threatening foreclosure by XX/XX/XXXX if payment was not received. This tactic is consistent with their previous behavior during my COVID forbearance request, where they falsely claimed deficiencies in my application to justify issuing a notice of default. \n\nAllegations of Discrimination I believe there is a high degree of discrimination in UWM 's actions, possibly based on orientation, ethnicity, or other factors. Their scare tactics and predatory practices appear to target vulnerable individuals disproportionately, undermining the American middle class. \n\nRequest for Investigation I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) thoroughly investigates UWM 's actions and reviews their history of complaints, including : CFPB Complaint No. XXXX CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Their repeated failures, contradictory statements, and predatory practices warrant serious scrutiny and regulatory action to prevent further harm to consumers. \n\nAdditional Details To provide more context, I will elaborate further on each of these points : Failure to Meet Response Deadlines The pattern of missed deadlines is egregious and systemic. In my case, the initial mitigation application sent on XX/XX/XXXX was just one of many instances where UWM failed to respond within the required XXXX period. Each missed deadline adds to the financial and emotional burden placed on borrowers like myself, who are already in distress. This is not an isolated incident. Over the past year, I have documented multiple instances where UWM has failed to meet response deadlines. \n\nIn each case, I have provided all required documentation promptly, yet UWM has consistently failed to acknowledge receipt or provide timely responses. This pattern of behavior indicates a systemic issue within the company, rather than a series of isolated incidents. \n\nRestrictive and Unreasonable Payment Policies The restrictions placed on my account are particularly burdensome. By refusing to accept most payment types and requiring certified funds, UWM is creating additional hurdles for borrowers who are already struggling to make their mortgage payments. The added cost of mailing certified funds or paying a {$30.00} wire fee further exacerbates the financial strain. \n\nMoreover, these restrictions seem to be applied arbitrarily. In my case, UWM refused to accept a certified check I sent, returning it nearly two weeks later. This delay not only increased the risk of late payment penalties but also added unnecessary stress and confusion. UWMs actions appear to be designed to create additional barriers for borrowers, rather than facilitating timely payments. \n\nHarassment Through Correspondence The volume of correspondence I received from UWM between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX is staggering. In just over six weeks, I received 16 separate letters, each one more threatening than the last. These correspondences included warnings of impending foreclosure, demands for payment, and notices of account restrictions. \n\nThe constant barrage of threatening letters creates an environment of fear and uncertainty. Rather than addressing my request for assistance, UWMs communications focused solely on punitive measures. This harassment adds to the emotional toll of an already stressful situation and makes it difficult for borrowers to navigate the mortgage assistance process. \n\nContradictory Responses and Documentation The contradictory responses I received from UWM highlight significant issues with their internal processes. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that my application documentation was insufficient. The very next day, I received another letter, also dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that my application was complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThese contradictory statements are confusing and undermine my confidence in UWMs ability to manage my account effectively. Such inconsistencies are not only frustrating but also indicate deeper issues within UWMs operations. It appears that different departments or employees are not communicating effectively, leading to conflicting information being sent to borrowers. \n\nThis lack of coordination adds to the complexity and confusion of the mortgage assistance process. \n\nUnnecessary Appraisal Valuation The ordering of an appraisal valuation on XX/XX/XXXX, despite my application being deemed incomplete on XX/XX/XXXX, raises serious questions about UWMs handling of my case. If my application was truly incomplete, there would be no reason to order an appraisal. This action suggests that UWM may be prematurely preparing for foreclosure, rather than genuinely assessing my eligibility for assistance. \n\nThis premature ordering of an appraisal adds to the stress and uncertainty faced by borrowers. It indicates that UWM may be more focused on moving forward with foreclosure proceedings than on providing the assistance needed to help borrowers stay in their homes. \n\nRejection of Payments Despite my efforts to fulfill my payment obligations, UWM rejected a certified check I sent and returned it nearly two weeks later. A representative had indicated that payments would be applied to the outstanding balance once my account was in the loss mitigation department, yet this was not honored. This rejection of payments is particularly troubling, as it suggests that UWM is not acting in good faith to help borrowers meet their obligations. \n\nThe rejection of payments not only increases the risk of late fees and penalties but also adds to the confusion and frustration faced by borrowers. It creates additional hurdles for those who are already struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments and undermines the trust between borrowers and servicers. \n\nInsurance Policy Mismanagement On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice claiming my insurance policy had expired, despite it being paid. I promptly sent proof of payment and a copy of the receipt via tracked mail, which is included with this complaint. This incident is just one example of UWMs mismanagement of my account. \n\nSuch mismanagement can have serious consequences, including the imposition of forced-place insurance, which is often more expensive than the borrowers own policy. It also adds to the administrative burden on borrowers, who must constantly provide proof of payment and other documentation to correct errors made by UWM. \n\nErroneous Notices and Threats of Foreclosure XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, UWM notified me that my application was missing documents, despite prior acknowledgment of completion. On XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a notice of default, threatening foreclosure by XX/XX/XXXX if payment was not received. This tactic is consistent with their previous behavior during my COVID forbearance request, where they falsely claimed deficiencies in my application to justify issuing a notice of default. \n\nThe issuance of erroneous notices and threats of foreclosure creates a climate of fear and uncertainty for borrowers. It undermines the purpose of the mortgage assistance process, which is to help borrowers stay in their homes. Instead, UWMs actions seem designed to expedite foreclosure proceedings, rather than providing the support needed to prevent them. \n\nAllegations of Discrimination I believe there is a high degree of discrimination in UWM 's actions, possibly based on orientation, ethnicity, or other factors. Their scare tactics and predatory practices appear to target vulnerable individuals disproportionately, undermining the American middle class. \n\nDiscrimination in the handling of mortgage accounts is a serious concern. It not only violates fair housing laws but also exacerbates the challenges faced by already vulnerable populations. UWMs actions appear to reflect a pattern of targeting certain borrowers for more aggressive and punitive measures, rather than providing equitable treatment to all customers. \n\nRequest for Investigation I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) thoroughly investigates UWM 's actions and reviews their history of complaints, including : CFPB Complaint No. XXXX CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Their repeated failures, contradictory statements, and predatory practices warrant serious scrutiny and regulatory action to prevent further harm to consumers. \nI urge the CFPB to consider the systemic nature of the issues I have outlined and to take appropriate action to hold UWM accountable for their actions. \n\nThis includes enforcing compliance with regulatory requirements, addressing discriminatory practices, and ensuring that borrowers are treated fairly and with respect. \n\nThank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your prompt response and to seeing meaningful action taken to address these serious concerns. \n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-03T15:12:12.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"89148","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9700242","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"United Shore Financial Services, LLC","date_received":"2024-08-03T14:20:56.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This pattern of behavior indicates a <em>systemic</em> issue within the company, <em>rather</em> than a <em>series</em> of isolated incidents. \n\nRestrictive and Unreasonable Payment Policies The restrictions placed on my account are particularly burdensome. By refusing to accept most payment types and requiring certified funds, UWM is creating additional hurdles for borrowers who are already struggling to make their mortgage payments."]},"sort":[13.458053,"9700242"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16859175","_score":12.970411,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted multiple written disputes and CFPB complaints to Equifax Information Services LLC concerning serious and repeated violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and CFPB XXXX XXXX. \n\nMailings to Equifax : XX/XX/XXXX : Sent my initial dispute ( LetterStream Job # XXXX, mailed XX/XX/XXXX ) requesting correction and reinvestigation of numerous inaccurate or duplicate accounts including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and others. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Sent a second dispute ( LetterStream Job # XXXX ) titled Comprehensive FCRA Verification and Reinvestigation Demand citing FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 611 ( a ) ( 2 ), 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Both packages included my valid ID, Social Security card, and XXXX XXXX bill. \n\nInstead of performing a lawful reinvestigation, on XX/XX/XXXX Equifax mailed XXXX identical form letters falsely stating it could not locate a file or that my disputes were frivolous. These were issued after receiving complete documentation, showing Equifax relied on an automated rejection process rather than a good-faith, reasonable reinvestigation required by 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \n\nSeries of CFPB complaints ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ) : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX CFPB Case XXXX Reliable Credit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX entries ; Equifax ignored proof of XXXX and failed to delete duplicates. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX paid in full yet still reported as unpaid. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; unlicensed to collect in WA, XXXX contract or itemization provided. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Case XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau XXXX TransUnion deleted XXXX Equifax did not. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX entries for a settled account still reporting active. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX vs XXXX XXXX ; same debt reported twice under different names. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balances and charge-off dates never verified. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX data errors : outdated names and addresses ignored despite prior deletion requests. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Complaint documenting XXXX XXXX XXXX letters dated XX/XX/XXXX and systemic failure to reinvestigate. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Summary complaint detailing XXXX pattern of non-response and FCRA violations XXXX \n\nEvery complaint received the same generic CFPB status noticeEquifax has received your complaint We need more time to reviewwith no substantive response. This shows a consistent pattern of delay, obstruction, and disregard for consumer-protection law. \n\nEquifaxs repeated use of automated file not found or frivolous letters after receiving valid ID constitutes willful violations of : FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation ; FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum accuracy ; 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to provide specific reasons for frivolous classification ; RCW 19.182.070 ( 2 ) ( Washington State ) Failure to promptly delete unverifiable information. \n\nRequested Action : CFPB enforcement to compel Equifax to ( 1 ) perform a manual line-by-line reinvestigation, ( 2 ) produce its internal dispute logs and audit trail, ( 3 ) permanently delete duplicate and unverified accounts, and ( 4 ) cease issuing template frivolous letters after receiving valid proof of identity. Equifaxs actions show reckless and willful non-compliance requiring immediate CFPB supervisory intervention and referral for possible civil penalties under FCRA 616617.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-29T01:28:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"99208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16859175","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-29T01:01:26.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX data <em>errors</em> : outdated names and addresses ignored despite prior deletion requests. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Complaint documenting XXXX XXXX XXXX letters dated XX/XX/XXXX and <em>systemic</em> <em>failure</em> to reinvestigate. \nXXXX."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[12.970411,"16859175"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321378","_score":4.4661202,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>error</em> is deliberate. The harm is real."]},"sort":[4.4661202,"13321378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13318699","_score":4.4661202,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13318699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>error</em> is deliberate. The harm is real."]},"sort":[4.4661202,"13318699"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321520","_score":4.44399,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321520","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T20:55:45.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>error</em> is deliberate. The harm is real."]},"sort":[4.44399,"13321520"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":2.2799392,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW.,\nWashington, DC\nDC 20552\nThis is to complain against the Bank of America\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.\n I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially.\nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute tomyoverall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and\npractice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firms.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the\n \nnature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-\n  \ninterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly\n \nadopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [ 1]. Second, it shall serve as formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of a wrongful and negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated Hackers (the Scammer), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named XXXX  in the\ntotal amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in\nthe fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance\nwithin your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation,\nwhether by raising chargeback in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime XXXX XXXX XXXX 1\n   \nPage 2 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX   Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and demand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive victims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme and therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transactions the Scammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on me which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.\n  2\n\nPage 3 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\n Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along! Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization had breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to satisfy yourself that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation on a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the Quincecare duty, because it was established in the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. (the Quincecare duty)\nThe Quincecare duty is well-established and requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing clients instructions. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the clients funds.\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution has been able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution shall seek further information or/and documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it became glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information or/and documentation were sought by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented at all.\nIf a bank executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank shall be liable to its client for damages in negligence.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst they are investigated.\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.)\n    3\n\nPage 4 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds shall not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something fishy was going on and suspended transactions until you had made reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the transactions was/were properly to be executed. In other words, I have been a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard my financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was a fraud victim (Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50) [ 3].\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer. The debits made to my account should be reversed out, and damages to compensate me for any reasonably foreseeable losses incurred as a result of your failure to state the balance of my account accurately and properly. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about someone that adversely affect their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action or/and additional responsibilities or liabilities owed by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties owed by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those owed to the customer. On top of that, please remember you may owe liabilities to more than one regulator.\nMore often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper authorization or enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence.\nA plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nAccording to the FCA [5]: XXXXXXXX  could do more to identify fraudulent incoming payments and prevent accounts from being compromised by fraudsters. XXXX fraud is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an XXXX  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints about Authorised Push Payment fraud (XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMoreover, I argue that you should also make a reasonable estimate on the basis of relevant historical data of my account.\n\"Given XXXX fraud is currently a XXXX million problem and growing, the potential exposure for banks is very large indeed. This is yet another reason why the banking industry must do all it can to use the data available to it to detect and stop fraud.\"\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of irregular or suspicious transactions and traffic patterns to identify financial crimes in general and common fraudulent schemes in specific;\n Human review of complaints from the public and law enforcement in connection with rapidly-growing, recurring, and popular fraudulent practices as well as suspicious merchants, including creating special channels for such complaints;\n Cross-checking warnings, notices, cautionary announcements, and reports concerning beneficiaries, merchants, associations, or countries often suspected to be associated with cyber-fraud from governments, central banks, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and watchdogs.\n Artificial Intelligence & XXXX embrace and leverage Machine Learning technologies and Big Data Analytics to identify fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent merchants by scrutinizing publications and reports about such merchants in the digital sphere (e.g. on forums, social media, et cetera.)\n Establishing contact with the recipient institution of fraud victims: any holds in place on new related activities, or similar blockers that prevent rapid rebranding of related/similar merchants.\nIt would also be wise to consider implementing additional safeguards where the movement of large sums of monies are concerned. For instance, you could specify additional prerequisites for executing the transfer of large sums such as: (1) requiring multiple levels of approval; (2) requesting more information concerning the intended purpose of the transfers and cross-checking for similar patterns of transfer; and (3) checking on my capacity to make such transfers. While such measures entail additional compliance costs, it would be sensible for you to err on the side of caution.\n5\n\nPage 6 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION\n If a full refund is not administered within 10 days from the date of this letter, in addition to a refund amount, a request for reimbursement of attorneys fees, filing fees, and any further costs associated with obtaining the refund amount may be pursued.\nIn the event of non-compliance with the demand mentioned above, your organization, knowingly or unknowingly, manifestly jeopardize its business through its association with the Criminals: those who are not direct accomplices to the commission of a crime but rather are permissive of the criminal behavior after the crime has been committed can also be charged with a crime. Being permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your part in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice.\nThis letter does not realize the full extent of my claims, rights, and remedies against you or any of your affiliates, parents and subsidiary corporations, including, without limitation, your representative managing partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, assigns, successors, servants, insurers, and representatives, in any matter whatsoever, including the present context of this letter, as that will not detract from my rights and claims in any form or manner whatsoever, or constitute any concessions on my behalf against you and against others.\nFor more information, please reread.\nXXXX XXXX  6\n\nPage 7 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nDEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE\nThe individuals who directed and enjoyed the fruits of these illegal and unlawful activities shall be exposed in full. This means that any and all contextual documents and/or information at your disposal shall be disclosed in a timely and equitable manner, in a reply to this letter.\nHence, I hereby demand that you disclose the following within 10 days from the date of this letter:\nReports, instructions, transmittal letters, statements, notices, and other documents, related to the relevant participants and beneficiaries, whether involved directly or indirectly, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. It also includes the correct and true names of the parties to the lawsuit, their ID NO., addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as information and documents of any potential party or of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case, including information and documents concerning their beneficiary bank accounts, if available.\n 7\n\nTo: Bank of America\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject: XXXX XXXX XXXX  complain to Bank of America\nFAO: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n This is my subsequent letter pursuant to the original, unanswered disputed letter sent to Bank of America on the XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWith this letter, I hereby express my utmost dissatisfaction with your lack of reply to the above referenced letter and reiterate key points that were raised and left unanswered previously supporting my request for your cooperation.\nAs I mentioned I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by hackers (the Company) and innocently lost XXXX XXXX  of my hard-earned life-savings due to your misadministration.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must therefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as the one described herein.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimization period; I was also relatively financially illiterate and very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast, mostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are people who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping the uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been lost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a XXXX who XXXX  his victim whilst at the same time XXXX XXXX  and prevents them from escaping.\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management\n\nsystem, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and preemptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal\nenterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me\nas a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including\nvulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of\nunusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud\nprograms, and other associated policies and procedures.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organization is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-21T20:26:34.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33908","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6736230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-22T23:52:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the <em>errors</em> of the past."]},"sort":[2.2799392,"6736230"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":9,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":9}]}},"product":{"doc_count":9,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":9,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with paying off the loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":9,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":9}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":9,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":9,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":9}]}},"company":{"doc_count":9,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Selene Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"United Shore Financial Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":9,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MI","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":9,"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":5}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":9,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_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":{}}}