{"took":117,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":8,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9752888","_score":18.899931,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I as a consumer aquire a lease from XXXX XXXX if XXXX, for personal, family and household purposes, I and XXXX XXXX XXXX, agreed by contract to certain terms and conditions ( as I reserve my rights ) for a 30 month lease with a security deposit of XXXX dollars, which was express to me that I would get those security and funds back, if I dod not want to purchase said contract at the end of the lease, after 30 months of having the automobile, I enquired about taking full ownership, upon requesting, XXXX XXXX of XXXX through there agents/workers, try to make me pay over XXXX dollars, to have full ownership to the automobile, ( which was never mention or told to me or put in a contract ) after the disappointment, I asked for my security deposit of XXXX dollars, ( which was not given to me ) so after the 30 months, I and XXXX XXXX XXXX by way of telephone communication, extending the lease, to give me more time and to go elsewhere to find a financial institution to assign said contract and take full ownership, for a additional 3 months, after the 3 months a inquired about my security deposit of XXXX dollars and they brushed it off, but a month later my account was credited XXXX and then a month later, XXXX XXXX XXXX, stated that the credit was in error and reversed it, but agree to extend my lease for another 3 months, and sent a contract, that I had to sign, and upon looking at tge contract , I put my terms and faxed it to XXXX XXXX XXXX , I continue making payments for the monthly bills that XXXX XXXX XXXX sent each month, as a assumed the lease was extended until a financial institution could be found, ( XXXX XXXX XXXX , put a late payment on my credit report and after disputing that error, they reverse my late charge but did not reserve the reporting of that alleged late payment, which put a bad mark on my credit report, ) in good faith, I made and continue to make the monthly payments that was due by way of XXXX XXXX XXXX , sending me a bill each month, but to my surprise and shock, on or about XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent a tow truck at my daughters home that I was visiting at XXXXXXXX XXXX to seize my automobile and my possessions that were inside, with a warrant, court order, or any documents, stating that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX my automobile, or possessions that were inside without my consent and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX never gave me, due process, or notice of any such actions, I would have handle it properly if given notice, and when calling XXXX XXXX XXXX , I was told to get a lawyer and I can't talk to there legal department if I was nit a lawyer, ( given me legal advice, and I don't belive they have a license to practice law ) the woman was \" XXXX ''","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-13T15:01:10.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"067XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9752888","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-08-08T22:59:38.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company communicating payment assistance or payment extension options"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["on my credit <em>report</em> and after disputing that <em>error</em>, they <em>reverse</em> my <em>late</em> <em>charge</em> but did not <em>reserve</em> the <em>reporting</em> of that <em>alleged</em> <em>late</em> payment, which put a bad mark on my credit <em>report</em>, ) in good faith, I made and continue to make the monthly payments that was due by way of XXXX XXXX XXXX , sending me a bill each month, but to my surprise and shock, on or about XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent a tow truck at my daughters home that I was visiting at XXXXXXXX XXXX to seize my automobile and my possessions"]},"sort":[18.899931,"9752888"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20687947","_score":12.4018755,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"* * XXXX : * * XXXX XXXX * * XXXX XXXX. : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX To Whom It May Concern : This letter is submitted as a renewed and expanded consumer complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and as a formal Notice of Error and Request for Information to Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Regulation X, including 12 C.F.R. 1024.17, 1024.35, 1024.36, and 1024.37. A servicer must comply with a written notice of error that identifies the borrower, the loan, and the asserted error, and must likewise comply with a written request for information that identifies the borrower, the loan, and the requested information. CFPBs current Regulation X pages state exactly that for notices of error and requests for information. ( [ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ] [ 1 ] ) SPS has been on notice of these servicing problems since at least XX/XX/XXXX. In the first CFPB complaint, the borrower explained that the loan was transferred to SPS even though the loan documents and closing structure required escrow only for flood insurance, not hazard insurance, and that SPS nevertheless disbursed more than {$21000.00} for homeowners insurance policies that had either already been paid, had been rejected, or were otherwise not authorized to be escrowed. SPS purchased the loan from XXXX XXXX Mortgage which loan documents would indicate escrow for flood only, not hazard. SPS responded on XX/XX/XXXX by admitting that the account was incorrectly transferred to SPS as escrowed for both hazard insurance and flood insurance, that it advanced funds from the escrow account when an insurance policy was received, and that it had updated the account to remove hazard escrow, while still insisting that any duplicate refunds should be obtained by the borrower and then sent back to SPS. \n\nThat response did not resolve the problem ; it confirmed it. SPS admitted the servicing transfer was wrong, admitted it treated the account as escrowed for hazard and flood when it should not have, admitted it advanced funds because of that error, and then attempted to shift the financial and administrative consequences of its own mistake onto the borrower. The second CFPB complaint, submitted in XX/XX/XXXX, expressly called out that SPS had already admitted making error payments for hazard insurance, had escalated the shortage from roughly {$17000.00} to roughly {$21000.00}, and was still demanding an inflated monthly amount while telling the borrower to chase insurance-company refunds for payments SPS had no authority to make in the first place. SPSs XX/XX/XXXX response again admitted the account was incorrectly transferred as escrowed for hazard and flood, again stated it removed hazard escrow, again asserted that any duplicate insurance refunds should be sent by the borrower to SPS, and again claimed the new monthly payment was accurate. \n\nThe current records show the problem has not only continued, but worsened. SPSs XX/XX/XXXX statement reflects a regular monthly payment of {$5300.00}, consisting of principal, interest, and escrow, and states that the account is due for XX/XX/XXXX and that {$10000.00} is due by XX/XX/XXXX, effectively double-charging the borrower for a claimed past-due installment. The XX/XX/XXXX statement again lists the regular monthly payment at {$5300.00} and again states that {$10000.00} is due, while showing that SPS received a payment on XX/XX/XXXX, parked it in unapplied funds, and then posted a SHORT PAYMENT entry rather than treating the payment as satisfying the borrowers obligation in the ordinary course. The XX/XX/XXXX statement shows the same pattern. It lists {$4300.00} as unapplied funds, states a total amount due of {$6200.00}, and shows unpaid late charges of {$1300.00}, even though SPS also shows that it received payments and then moved them through suspense and SHORT PAYMENT entries. \n\nThe XXXX statement is especially revealing. It states on page 1 that Partial payments are treated as unapplied funds until we receive enough for a full principal and interest payment, while at the same time the transaction history shows SPS receiving a payment on XX/XX/XXXX, assessing a late payment charge that same day, and then the next day posting a SHORT PAYMENT entry that applied principal and interest while zeroing out the suspense balance. That is exactly why the current late-fee demand is improper. SPS can not create or preserve a delinquency by its own payment-posting choices and then monetize that servicer-created delinquency through late fees. Regulation Xs error-resolution procedures exist precisely for servicing errors of this sort, and CFPBs mortgage servicing rules also govern escrow administration and force-placed insurance practices. \n\nThe insurance charges are equally problematic. The XX/XX/XXXX statement shows XXXX separate flood-insurance disbursements in XXXX, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX for {$2700.00} and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX for $ XXXX XXXX Form XXXX from SPS separately reports hazard-insurance XXXX of {$22000.00} for XXXX. You have now advised that SPS also made XXXX flood-insurance payments to both XXXX XXXX and XXXX and is trying to make the borrower bear the cost of XXXX flood policies. If that is what occurred, SPS has compounded the same problem it admitted in XXXX : it is paying policies it should not pay, billing the borrower for those disbursements, and then using the resulting balance distortion to justify an inflated monthly payment and continuing late charges. \n\nThe prior SPS position that the insurance XXXX would have sent you a refund check directly, which could be sent to SPS is not a valid answer. SPS made the disbursements. SPS created the escrow shortage. SPS controls the servicing ledger. SPS is the party with the servicing obligation under federal law. Removing hazard escrow without fully unwinding the consequences of SPSs own improper disbursements does not remediate the error. It simply freezes the borrower inside a distorted ledger and then forces the borrower to act as SPSs collection agent against third-party insurers. That is not correction. It is cost shifting. \n\nXXXX anticipated defenses fail on both the facts and the law. SPS will likely repeat that the account was transferred in incorrectly, that it later removed hazard escrow, and that any duplicate refunds must come from the insurers. But that admission actually establishes the borrowers core point : SPS knows the original escrow classification was wrong and knows it paid insurance based on that wrong classification. Once SPS admitted the servicing input error, its duty was not merely to stop making XXXX category of future disbursement. Its duty was to restore the account to the position it would have occupied absent SPSs own error, correct the shortage it manufactured, remove related late fees and delinquency treatment, and cease collection of amounts caused by its own misadministration. XXXX XXXX escrow rules govern how servicers maintain and analyze escrow accounts, and CFPB guidance makes clear that escrow collections are tied to amounts the servicer reasonably anticipates paying from the account. An escrow shortage built on unauthorized or erroneous disbursements is not reasonably anticipated in the ordinary sense ; it is servicer-caused. \n\nSPS XXXX also argue, as it did before, that late fees were assessed according to the note and that reporting was accurate. That answer ignores the threshold error. If the servicer misapplies payments, holds funds in suspense, inflates the amount due through improper insurance charges, and manufactures an escrow shortage by paying policies it should not have paid, then the servicer can not rely on the notes late-charge language as if the borrower independently failed to perform. The current record shows that SPS received payments, carried unapplied funds, and still assessed or preserved late fees totaling {$1300.00}. On these facts, the borrowers position is not that SPS miscalculated a late fee by a few dollars. The position is that SPS created the conditions under which it claimed a late fee at all. \nSPS XXXX further argue that it only escrowed flood after XX/XX/XXXX and that its current flood premium is merely a pass-through amount set by the XXXX. That defense also fails if SPS is indeed carrying XXXX flood policies or paying XXXX flood carriers for overlapping periods. Even if XXXX XXXX sets the premium, SPS remains responsible for determining whether it is properly disbursing escrow funds, whether coverage is duplicative, whether the borrower already has acceptable coverage, and whether the borrower is being charged for a servicer-caused duplication. CFPBs force-placed insurance rule governs hazard insurance specifically, but the broader Regulation X framework still requires accurate servicing, proper escrow administration, and timely correction of servicing errors. \n\nThis letter therefore identifies the following servicing errors and requests corresponding information. First, SPS has erred by failing to fully correct the consequences of the improper hazard-escrow transfer that it admitted in XXXX. Second, SPS has erred by assessing, maintaining, or attempting to collect late fees, including the current {$1300.00} late-fee balance, where the alleged delinquency is tied to SPSs own misapplication of payments and insurance-related account distortion. XXXX, SPS has erred by placing funds into unapplied status and then using that treatment to roll forward past-due amounts and generate inflated monthly demands. XXXX, SPS has erred by disbursing insurance premiums in a manner that appears duplicative, including XXXX flood-insurance payments to more than XXXX XXXX, and then requiring the borrower to pay for SPSs own XXXX or to recover SPSs money from the insurers. XXXX, SPS has erred by failing to provide a true remediation after admitting the account was transferred and serviced under an incorrect escrow structure. XXXX, SPS has erred to the extent it has furnished adverse account status or maintained delinquency metrics that arise from those servicing errors. \n\nUPDATED : ( Please note that to date, in XXXX, SPS has made payment, improperly, to XXXX flood insurance companies : XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX for the same property. SPS must obtain, on its own, a refund for XXXX XXXX as this policy had been cancelled. Please also note that SPS has overpaid Selective Insurance company, sending a check in the amount of over {$2000.00} for a policy with a premium of only {$1800.00}. Such remediation is required at the expense of SPS not the borrower. This ongoing bad faith and improper disbursement of money is the servicers to remediate not the borrower. ) Please see the attached XX/XX/XXXX letter from SPS. SPSs XX/XX/XXXX correspondence further confirms the servicing errors at issue rather than resolving them. SPS continues to withhold substantial funds in suspense, fail to apply them in a reasonable manner and then claim a possible delinquency and added late fees to a problem THEY HAVE CREATED. SPS claims the borrower is short {$920.00} but that amount is derived from : improper escrow charges, improper insurance disbursements, and their own admitted servicing errors. SPS logic amounts to \" you did not pay the full amount we incorrectly calculated, and therefore you are delinquent and owe us late fees. '' This is not legally sustainable and unjust to the borrower. This is not a legitimate deficiency in payment but rather the result of SPS ' inflated monthly obligation. SPS continues to weaponize suspense accounting. SPS receives money, holds it in suspense and refuses to apply it. Then assess late fees, inflate the amount due, and threaten credit reporting. This is a violation of RESPA. \n\nSPS to their benefit completely ignore that they created the escrow imbalance, they made unauthorized insurance payments and made duplicate coverage payments for both hazard and flood in XXXX and XXXX. They shift the burden to the borrower and demands the borrower catches up. SPS can not now rely on those same improper charges to claim that the borrower has failed to make full contractual payment. XXXX suggestion that the borrower must resolve the escrow issue by paying the inflated amount or seeking assistance options is inappropriate. The borrower is not in default ; SPS has created a distorted account balance through improper insurance payments and escrow handling. SPSnot the borrowermust correct those errors. In short, SPS is attempting to require the borrower to cure a deficiency that SPS itself created. That is not permitted under federal servicing standards. \n\nThe borrower reiterates that SPS must immediately apply all unapplied funds, remove all late charges, reverse all improper escrow and insurance-related charges, and restore the account to the position it would have been in had SPS not XXXX disbursed insurance funds or misapplied payments. \n\nSPS is treating the loan as delinquent solely because the borrower has not paid amounts that SPS improperly added to the account as a result of its own escrow and insurance errors. SPS can not create a servicing error and then penalize the borrower for not curing that error. \n\nTo cure these errors, SPS must do more than simply now acknowledge the proper escrow and loan documents and remove hazard escrow in name only. \n\nSPS must reverse every late fee that was assessed or carried forward because of the servicer-created delinquency, including the currently stated {$1300.00}. SPS must immediately apply all borrower payments correctly and reconstruct the account history month by month as if SPS had not improperly advanced hazard-insurance funds and as if SPS had not posted duplicative insurance disbursements. SPS must identify every insurance disbursement made since servicing transfer, including each hazard and flood payment, the date, payee, policy number, coverage period, reason for payment, and the specific authority SPS contends permitted the disbursement. SPS must identify all XXXX flood-insurance payments, including the payments reflected on the XXXX statement, and explain whether XXXX XXXX and XXXX were XXXX paid, why both were paid, and for what coverage periods. SPS must then pursue reimbursement directly from the carriers to the extent SPS made duplicate, unauthorized, or unnecessary payments. SPS is the party that made the disbursements. The borrower is not required to underwrite SPSs remediation by fronting inflated monthly payments or by acting as SPSs recovery department. \nSPS must also produce all escrow analyses, escrow-closing notices, disbursement histories, servicing-transfer boarding records, insurance notices, XXXX communications, coverage-verification documents, payment-posting histories, suspense-account histories, fee histories, and all records relating to any force-placement, lender-placement, duplicate payment, or overlapping flood coverage. SPS must explain how it calculated the current monthly amount due, how it carried forward past-due amounts, and why it considered the borrower late while also holding unapplied funds. CFPBs current Regulation X pages confirm the borrowers right to seek both error correction and information related to mortgage servicing. \n\nThe borrowers position is straightforward. SPS admitted the account was transferred and serviced under the wrong escrow assumption. SPS then failed to unwind the damage from that admitted error. Instead, SPS preserved the account distortion, charged the borrower as though SPSs mistake were the borrowers obligation, kept or assessed late fees, and is now apparently duplicating flood-insurance disbursements while insisting that the borrower either pay the inflated balance or recover SPSs money from insurers. That is not remediation, and it is not compliant servicing. \n\nAccordingly, the borrower demands that SPS, within the timelines required by federal law, acknowledge this Complaint, Notice of Error and XXXX for XXXX, conduct a full investigation, remove the late charges it itself has created by improper servicing errors, correct the payment application history, eliminate all account balances caused by unauthorized or duplicative insurance disbursements, cease collection of any amount tied to those disbursements, correct any inaccurate credit reporting, and provide the complete servicing and insurance records described above. If SPS contends no error occurred, then SPS must identify with specificity the contractual and regulatory basis for each disputed disbursement, each late charge, each suspense posting, and each claimed monthly amount due. \n\nPlease treat this submission as both a formal CFPB complaint supplement and a formal Notice of Error / Request for Information under Regulation X. The borrower expressly reserves all rights, claims, damages, and remedies. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-26T18:50:12.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"33157","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20687947","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2026-03-26T18:17:45.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["SPS XXXX also argue, as it did before, that <em>late</em> fees were assessed according to the note and that <em>reporting</em> was accurate. That answer ignores the threshold <em>error</em>. If the servicer misapplies payments, holds funds in suspense, inflates the amount due through improper insurance <em>charges</em>, and manufactures an escrow shortage by paying policies it should not have paid, then the servicer can not rely on the notes <em>late</em>-<em>charge</em> language as if the borrower independently failed to perform."]},"sort":[12.4018755,"20687947"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10398224","_score":10.781459,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX AGENT/BENEFICIARY/SECURED PARTY XXXX Highway XXXX # XXXX XXXX, AL XXXX To : XXXX XXXX XXXX SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Inquiries XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Credit Reports and Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Certified Mail Number XXXX CFPB XXXX ID FOR COMPLAINT SENT TO SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL XXXX RE : PayPal Credit ACCT # XXXX XXXX NOTICE OF DISPUTE Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX Or acting representative It has come to my attention that I have been making payments in error pursuant to 12 CFR 1026.13.\n\nYou have been requiring Federal Reserve Notes as payment, when in fact the original application with financial information ( Utilizing my social security exemption account ) served as an asset, which also satisfies the alleged monthly obligation. \n\nSince XX/XX/year> I attempted to establish a new course of dealing utilizing the notice sent to me every month. XXXX XXXX replied and demanded payment in a specific type of coin or currency. Your demand for a specific type of currency is unlawful and unenforceable. \n\nProvisional Credits were given and then reversed which damaged my credit score and caused me serious financial harm in the process.\n\nThis Notice is to confirm that your claim is disputed under 15 USC 1692 et seq. Please verify under oath that this claim is valid, free from any claims and defenses including but not limited to : any breach of agreement, failure of consideration or material alterations, and that the original lender provided value. Further, that the alleged account was transferred in good faith and by the consent of all parties involved.\n\nTHE TRANSACTION In a credit card securitization transaction only the receivables are sold, not the accounts that generate the receivables. The financial institution retains legal ownership of the credit card accounts and can continue to change the terms on the accounts. Accounts corresponding to securitized loans are typically referred to as the designated accounts ( or sometimes trust accounts ). The initial outstanding balances on the designated accounts are sold to the trust as are the rights to any new charges on the designated accounts. Subsequently, as cardholder purchase activity generates more receivables on the designated accounts, these new receivables are purchased by the trust from the originating institution/seller/transferor. The trust uses the monthly principal payments received from the cardholders to acquire these new charges or receivables. When the securitization is initially set up, the originating institution/seller adds sufficient receivables to support the principal balance of the certificates plus an additional amount ( seller 's interest ) that serves to absorb fluctuations in the outstanding balance of the receivables. The originating institution/seller will make subsequent additions to the trust in order to keep the seller 's interest at the required level. ( Emphasis added ) See : https : //www.fdic.gov/regulations/examinations/credit_card_securitization/ch2.html After reasonable inquiry I have concluded that SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL is in breach of the alleged agreement. The following facts support my position in this matter : 1. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL failed to disclose to the alleged consumer XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter XXXX ) that SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL used consumers note, capital, funds, money or money equivalent to fund a note, check or similar instrument that was used to fund the charges on the alleged account, whereby SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL did not perform under the agreement and risked nothing of value. \n\n2. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL has not used any of their own capital, funds, money or money equivalents to pay for any charges on the alleged account.\n\n3. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL received something-for-nothing by using the consumers note ( s ) to fund charges to the credit card account while retaining payments from consumer.\n\n4. So, a breach occurred due to the fact that SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL failed to disclose the above information in their credit card agreement prior to soliciting applicant to become bound by it.\n\n5. Due to the breach, and lack of disclosure, SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL has, directly or indirectly, used false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means, in violation of Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, which constitutes fraud.\n\n6. Due to the securitization of the initial outstanding balances of the alleged account, SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL is not a holder in due course, and therefore can not have incurred a loss or make a valid claim.\n\n7. When accounts are 90 days or more overdue, SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL receives a payoff of the amount due from insurance, whose premiums were unknowingly funded by the so-called borrower.\n\nI want to receive absolute assurance from SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL that they did not breach the agreement.\n\nIn order to settle this matter, please sign or have an authorized officer sign the enclosed affidavit, confirming that you have read the agreement, that you understand GAAP, the bookkeeping entries, accounts receivables and deposits, the banking laws, and the Federal Reserve banks policies and procedures.\n\nIn addition, please furnish me with the following information : 1. A complete statement of Damages, including each and every loss that SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL incurred under the alleged agreement.\n\n2. A copy of any insurance claim having been made by SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL regarding this account.\n\n3. A front and back, true and correct copy of the alleged signed agreement bearing my signature ( full & complete disclosure ), and a detailed copy of the alleged account.\n\n4. A true and correct copy of the transfer instrument that was used to transfer the initial outstanding balances from this alleged account into the Special Purpose Entity ( SPE ) trust, as described on the FDIC website.\n\n5. The name, address and telephone number of SYNCHRONY FINANCIALs CPA auditor.\n\n6. Verification if this debt has been assigned or sold to a debt collector.\n\n7. If this debt has been assigned to a debt collector, please provide the commission amount if collection efforts are successful.\n\n8. If this debt has been sold to a debt collector, please provide the price for which it was sold.\n\nIt would be constructive for you to note that the FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) section 609 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( E ) states : \" a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from a consumer 's file, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or can not be verified.\n\nThe can not be verified is the key phrase, as you can see. Since I challenged you and your staff to verify, and you can not, that means all financial institutions and credit reporting agencies concerned with my account are required to remove any derogatory information. It can not be deemed accurate if it can not be verified. If it can not be verified, then it is required to be removed, according to the FCRA.\n\nYou are required by federal law to furnish the credit bureaus with the required disclosure by placing a notice of dispute on my account within ( 30 ) days after receiving this dispute letter. I am maintaining a careful record of dates as well as time-stamped copies of my credit reports, which will show that you have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) [ 15 USC 1681s-2 ] if you do not place the disclosure within the required ( 30 ) day period.\n\nAlso, during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with legal counsel for suit. This includes any listing of any information to a credit-reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. If your offices have or continue to report invalidated information to any of the three major credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ), this action might constitute fraud under both federal and state laws and directly violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found or continues to report on any of my credit reports by your company or any company that you represent, I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following : Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Defamation of Character, Bank Fraud, Aggravated Identity Theft and Conspiracy.\n\nI am sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could violate Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [ 15 USC 1681s-2 ], putting your company in serious legal trouble with the FTC and other state or federal agencies.\n\nAll communications and omissions will be made part of and incorporated into any litigation arising from this matter. Failure to verify and validate the debt within thirty ( 30 ) days by signing the enclosed affidavit confirms that no further action will be taken and an absolute waiver of any right to collect the alleged debt. Furthermore, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.\n\nYou must contact me in writing and request an extension in the event that you need more than thirty ( 30 ) days to verify and validate the debt. Failure to do so confirms that the time limit is reasonable.\n\nThis notice also constitutes a Notice to Cease Telephonic Communications. Non-compliance with this request will violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 USC 227.\n\nIf you can not verify and validate this debt by the above listed means, then what right do you have, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 USC 1692, to even send me a letter? Are you committing mail fraud?\n\nNOTICE THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION THAT YOU HAVE A COPY OF AN AGREEMENT OR COPIES OF STATEMENTS. THIS IS A DEMAND FOR PROOF THAT YOU HAVE THE REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, AND THAT THE ALLEGED CREDITOR PROVIDED ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION AND INCURRED A FINANCIAL LOSS UNDER THE FULL & COMPLETE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.\n\nNotice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent, and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal.\n\nClaim for which relief can be granted 1. Reopen Account Ending XXXX with XXXX balance. Or provide new account with XXXX balance. \nXXXX. Remove the Credit Limit ( S ) 3. Accept Negotiable Instrument for setoff payable in US dollars monthly.\n\n4. Remove all ( see highlighted sheet ) adverse information from my consumer credit report. Including ALL late payments.\n\nThank you very much I declare under penalty of perjury without the United States that the above statements are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\n\nSincerely, ________________________________________ Signed without prejudice by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Please be aware that dependent upon your response. I will be taking steps to initiate proceedings in federal court, I believe this is necessary for a fair resolution, and I am committed to pursuing this matter to its fullest extent. Also, the following companies have been notified of this situation. \n\nCc : XXXX. XXXX Corporate Headquarters Attention : XXXX XXXX/ Chairman XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX CA XXXX XXXX. XXXX Corporate Headquarters Attention : XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX IL XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX XXXX. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX : Enforcement Division XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington DC XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-10T06:49:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"357XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10398224","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2024-10-10T06:39:43.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["to my attention that I have been making payments in <em>error</em> pursuant to 12 CFR 1026.13."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[10.781459,"10398224"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2931328","_score":8.897636,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is the only specialty of Ocwen. This is the only duplicate their lair rep mentions about. The send criminals to XXXX on your property stole your private property using forge documents, lying to clients, deceiving clients and if they see that this I not working they used death threats tactics in order to intimidate people. This criminal organization must close soon permanently. I get death treats from XXXX 18 to 28 per days. Since I am not scare of this criminal behavior as I discover some IP addresses of those criminals I will go to XXXX to file criminal charges and close the doors of those hate-Americans criminals forever. This is the only expertise this pirate mortgage company has. \nServiced loans using error-riddled information : Ocwen uses a proprietary system called XXXX to process and apply borrower payments, communicate payment information to borrowers, and maintain loan balance information. Ocwen allegedly loaded inaccurate and incomplete information into its XXXX  system. And even when data was accurate, XXXX  generated errors because of system failures and deficient programming. To manage this risk, Ocwen tried manual workarounds, but they often failed to correct inaccuracies and produced still more errors. Ocwen then used this faulty information to service borrowers loans. In XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwens head of servicing described its system as ridiculous and a train wreck. \nIllegally foreclosed on homeowners : Ocwen has long touted its ability to service and modify loans for troubled borrowers. But allegedly, Ocwen has failed to deliver required foreclosure protections. As a result, the Bureau alleges that Ocwen has wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least 1,000 people, and has wrongfully held foreclosure sales. Among other illegal practices, Ocwen has initiated the foreclosure process before completing a review of borrowers loss mitigation applications. In other instances, Ocwen has asked borrowers to submit additional information within 30 days, but foreclosed on the borrowers before the deadline. Ocwen has also foreclosed on borrowers who were fulfilling their obligations under a loss mitigation agreement. \nFailed to credit borrowers payments : Ocwen has allegedly failed to appropriately credit payments made by numerous borrowers. Ocwen has also failed to send borrowers accurate periodic statements detailing the amount due, how payments were applied, total payments received, and other information. Ocwen has also failed to correct billing and payment errors. \nBotched escrow accounts : Ocwen manages escrow accounts for over 75 percent of the loans it services. Ocwen has allegedly botched basic tasks in managing these borrower accounts. Because of system breakdowns and an over-reliance on manually entering information, Ocwen has allegedly failed to conduct escrow analyses and sent some borrowers escrow statements late or not at all. Ocwen also allegedly failed to properly account for and apply payments by borrowers to address escrow shortages, such as changes in the account when property taxes go up. One result of this failure has been that some borrowers have paid inaccurate amounts. \nMishandled hazard insurance : If a servicer administers an escrow account for a borrower, a servicer must make timely insurance and/or tax payments on behalf of the borrower. Ocwen, however, has allegedly failed to make timely insurance payments to pay for borrowers home insurance premiums. Ocwens failures led to the lapse of homeowners insurance coverage for more than 10,000 borrowers. Some borrowers were pushed into force-placed insurance. \nBungled borrowers private mortgage insurance : Ocwen allegedly failed to cancel borrowers private mortgage insurance, or PMI, in a timely way, causing consumers to overpay. Generally, borrowers must purchase PMI when they obtain a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20 percent, or when they refinance their mortgage with less than 20 percent equity in their property. Servicers must end a borrowers requirement to pay PMI when the principal balance of the mortgage reaches 78 percent of the propertys original value. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has failed to end borrowers PMI on time after learning information in its XXXX system was unreliable or missing altogether. Ocwen ultimately overcharged borrowers about {$1.00} XXXX for PMI premiums, and refunded this money only after the fact. \nDeceptively signed up and charged borrowers for add-on products : When servicing borrowers mortgage loans, Ocwen allegedly enrolled some consumers in add-on products through deceptive solicitations and without their consent. Ocwen then billed and collected payments from these consumers. \nFailed to assist heirs seeking foreclosure alternatives : Ocwen allegedly mishandled accounts for successors-in-interest, or heirs, to a deceased borrower. These consumers included widows, children, and other relatives. As a result, Ocwen failed to properly recognize individuals as heirs, and thereby denied assistance to help avoid foreclosure. In some instances, Ocwen foreclosed on individuals who may have been eligible to save these homes through a loan modification or other loss mitigation option. \nFailed to adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints : If an error is made in the servicing of a mortgage loan, a servicer must generally either correct the error identified by the borrower, called a notice of error, or investigate the alleged error. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has allegedly routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate complaints, or make necessary corrections. Ocwen changed its policy in XX/XX/XXXX to address the difficulty its call center had in recognizing and escalating complaints, but these changes fell short. Under its new policy, borrowers still have to complain at least five times in nine days before Ocwen automatically escalates their complaint to be resolved. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has received more than 580,000 notices of error and complaints from more than 300,000 different borrowers. \nFailed to provide complete and accurate loan information to new servicers : Ocwen has allegedly failed to include complete and accurate borrower information when it sold its rights to service thousands of loans to new mortgage servicers. This has hampered the new servicers efforts to comply with laws and investor guidelines. \nOperations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced actions to halt two alleged mortgage loan modification scams it believes ripped-off thousands of struggling homeowners across the country. In total, these operations took in more than {$10.00} XXXX by charging consumers for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages. \nWe are taking on schemes that prey on consumers who are struggling to pay their mortgages or facing foreclosure, said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. We are especially concerned with those who misrepresent government programs or websites to divert distressed homeowners from needed assistance. \nAt the request of the CFPB, U.S. District Court Judges in the State of XXXX have ordered a halt to both operations, the XXXX Law Firm and the National Legal Help Center, and frozen their assets while the CFPB moves forward with the cases. The case involving the National Legal Help Center was initially referred to the CFPB by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program ( SIGTARP ) and Treasurys Office of Financial Stability, which have coordinated closely with the Bureau throughout the investigation. \nIt is absolutely unacceptable for unscrupulous con artists to take advantage of our nations housing crisis by targeting homeowners looking for help from TARPs Home Affordable Modification Program, said XXXX XXXX, Special Inspector General for TARP ( SIGTARP ). We thank the CFPB for protecting homeowners. SIGTARP will continue to stop these scams and educate homeowners that mortgage modifications through HAMP are free. \nThe CFPB is targeting loan modification operations that attempt to disguise their false promises of relief for struggling homeowners with claims that they are performing legal work or are a law firm. The Bureau is also particularly concerned with schemes that attract victims with false claims that they are endorsed by or represent the government. These tactics are used by mortgage relief scams to attract victims, add credibility to their schemes, or exploit certain legal exemptions for the practice of law. \nThe CFPB complaints allege that the defendants in both cases violated the Dodd-Frank Act and Regulation O, formerly known as the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule. These laws prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and protect distressed homeowners from mortgage relief scams. \nViolations of the law alleged in the CFPBs complaints in both cases include : Illegally charged large upfront fees : It is against the law for mortgage relief providers to charge fees before services are provided. However, the defendants in both cases collected fees early on, typically ranging between {$1000.00} and {$4500.00} from each distressed homeowner, for services that rarely if ever materialized. \nDeceptively claimed to be affiliated with government agencies and/or programs : Defendants in both cases used deceptive language and mailings with government logos, letterhead, and/or marks to mislead consumers into believing that their mortgage relief services were sponsored by or associated with government agencies or programs. \nMisrepresented that they would secure loan modifications for consumers : Defendants misled consumers that the defendants were experienced negotiators who would substantially reduce mortgage payments, and that defendants would identify legal violations by consumers banks or mortgage companies to use as leverage in loan modification negotiations. However, it appears that defendants failed to provide meaningful relief for consumers. \nInstructed consumers to stop paying their mortgages and stop contacting their lenders : Financially distressed consumers were told to avoid interactions with their lenders and to stop mortgage payments because the defendants would provide relief, potentially putting the consumers unknowingly at risk of losing their homes and/or ruining their credit scores. \nThe CFPB also alleges that, after pocketing thousands of dollars in illegal fees from one distressed homeowner after another, the defendants in both cases typically stopped returning consumers phone calls and emails. In the end, many consumers learned that the defendants had not contacted their lenders or obtained any meaningful relief for them. Ultimately, homeowners across the country lost thousands of dollars each and suffered significant economic injury, including losing their homes. \nNational Legal Help Center The more recent of the two actions involves XXXX   residents XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and their operation, National Legal Help Center, which appears to target consumers in all 50 states with false promises of mortgage relief. According to the CFPB, National Legal Help Center falsely claimed that they would provide legal representation for consumers even though the individual defendants are not attorneys and consumers received no actual legal representation. \nDefendants falsely claimed that, for a fee, they could assist consumers in getting benefits from government-affiliated programs, including the recent nationwide mortgage servicing settlement between state attorneys general and the federal government, and the five largest mortgage servicers. Defendants also falsely claimed that they were associated with the Independent Foreclosure Review program overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) and the Federal Reserve. In reality, the defendants were not affiliated with either of the programs or in a position to provide the promised benefits to consumers. In fact, on XX/XX/XXXX, the OCC issued an alert on its website about this scam. \nThis is the trophy activity of Ocwen In one case, a former in-home caregiver and her husband who were indicted in XXXX  for allegedly defrauding an elderly veteran with XXXX out of about {$180000.00}. More charges are expected, and police say the couple took about {$500000.00} from the XXXX-year-old man. \nIn another case, a handyman convinced an elderly woman to give him power of attorney. He took out a reverse mortgage on the home which the woman had owned since the XX/XX/XXXX, and she never saw any of the money. She almost lost her home due to the scam. \nWe also heard a troubling story about how the CEO and CFO of a XXXX investment firm were charged with 66 felony counts of elder abuse, securities fraud, and conspiracy for bilking older investors of more than {$2.00} XXXX over an eight-year period. \nThe Government Accountability Office report on combatting elder financial abuse identified cases that are particularly thorny for social service, criminal justice, and consumer protection agencies. These cases involve exploitation by in-home caregivers, agents with power of attorney, and financial service providersexactly the kinds of cases mentioned above. These cases also demonstrate why family members or others who have close contact with older adults can play an important role in spotting and preventing elder financial abuse and exploitation. \nAt the inaugural meeting of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council last fall, we heard concerns that echo what the XXXX reported. We shared those concerns with Congress shortly after the report came out. We also detailed the work our Office for Older Americans is doing to combat some of these problems. We are : Developing guides for family members and others with legal authority to handle money for older relatives or friends, but who may not have formal training. The guides will help people understand proper record keeping, good frameworks for investing, and other basics of managing a vulnerable adults money. They also will help people recognize and respond to financial exploitation. \nProducing a guide for people who operate group living centers dedicated to serving older adults, such as XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX. We are also establishing partnerships with organizations to help distribute this information. \nPartnering with the FDIC to create XXXX XXXX for Older Adults, a community education and training program for older adults and for caregivers. \nCoordinating with stakeholders in several states to create and sustain multi-disciplinary older American protection networks. We are also developing strategies to communicate that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally does not prohibit companies from reporting suspected elder financial exploitation. For many of them, this is often a point of confusion.\n\nThe Bureau also alleges that Ocwen has failed to remediate borrowers for the harm it has caused, including the problems it has created for struggling borrowers who were in default on their loans or who had filed for bankruptcy. For these groups of borrowers, Ocwens servicing errors have been particularly costly. \nThrough its complaint, filed in federal district court for the XXXX District of XXXX, the CFPB seeks a court order requiring Ocwen to follow mortgage servicing law, provide relief for consumers, and pay penalties. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. \nThe lawsuit is available at : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The Bureau also alleges that Ocwen has failed to remediate borrowers for the harm it has caused, including the problems it has created for struggling borrowers who were in default on their loans or who had filed for bankruptcy. For these groups of borrowers, Ocwens servicing errors have been particularly costly. \nThrough its complaint, filed in federal district court for the XXXX District of XXXX, the CFPB seeks a court order requiring Ocwen to follow mortgage servicing law, provide relief for consumers, and pay penalties. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. \n\nOperations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes XXXX XXXX. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced actions to halt two alleged mortgage loan modification scams it believes ripped-off thousands of struggling homeowners across the country. In total, these operations took in more than {$10.00} XXXX by charging consumers for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages. \nWe are going to have 150,000 demonstrating in XXXX against those criminal activity of Ocwen After it the doors of this filthy pirate mortgage company will be close permanently This is the prce for this {$100000.00} property stolen temporary from me. In XX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in order to intimidate me they put XXXX criminals to call me 15-20 a day, making even death threats or claiming they are from US Gov. Grants Dept. or from IRS or from Justice Dept. or even FBI or Police Dept. I suspect that a low-level clerk XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX  is directly responsible for organizing this XX/XX/XXXX looting perform by XXXX since Ocwen and XXXX was the only Institution informed about my trip to XXXX and this action was in ravage to my opposition to their fraudulent and criminal activity. Low level Ocwen clerk XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX  and the low lever worker XXXX from XXXX knew I will be in XXXX ( documenting Ocwens and XXXX forge documents ) informed XXXX  that used XXXX, that used looter XXXX XXXX to loot, vandalize destroy my property in XX/XX/XXXX. Again in a top secret close door knowing that I will not be home to protect from such a criminal attack","date_sent_to_company":"2018-06-09T15:54:08.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11375","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2931328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-06-09T15:44:09.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failed to adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints : If an <em>error</em> is made in the servicing of a mortgage loan, a servicer must generally either correct the <em>error</em> identified by the borrower, called a notice of <em>error</em>, or investigate the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em>. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has allegedly routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate complaints, or make necessary corrections."]},"sort":[8.897636,"2931328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10668585","_score":8.883201,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is a new issue. This complaint specifically addresses Freedom Mortgage 's current actions. They have refused to correct their credit bureau reporting of inaccurate late payments from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. They inflated the amount of time marked as late, although this is disputed. They prematurely removed my VA-backed mortgage from CARES Act protections, and on the first statement they sent me post-forbearance, they indicated I was already 30 days behind and then reported to the credit bureau that I was 60 days behind. \n\nThese protections were intended to ensure a transition out of forbearance without penalizing borrowers, even before the first payment was due. However, from my very first statement after HAF funds were received and after exiting the loss mitigation program, I was reported as 30 days late. I received a statement showing a past-due balance of one month, while they reported both 60- and 30-day lates to the credit bureau. \n\nFreedom Mortgage has not only inaccurately reported seven alleged late payments from XXXX but has also exaggerated the length of the claimed delinquency to credit bureaus from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This misrepresentation has impacted my credit profile and does not reflect my actual payment history. \n\nThe issue stems from their own incorrect statements starting with the first one post-forbearance issued on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX In fact, they have intentionally reported to the credit bureaus that they have no data for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX This is directly related to their decision to delete payments made timely. \n\nNotably, Freedom Mortgage 's reporting is inconsistent and contradictory. In their \" payments made '' section, they indicate that I have paid the amount owed up until XX/XX/XXXX. However, they simultaneously report the account as delinquent with 30, 60, and 90-day late marks. I have documented this erroneous and contradictory reporting across all three credit bureaus with a screenshot. The only consistent element in their reporting is the claim of having no data for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX This is significant because XX/XX/XXXX marks the month when they first removed both \" Unapplied Funds '' and \" Partial Payments Applied - Paid to Date '' from my record, initiating a pattern of reporting my account as perpetually 60 days behind. \n\nTimeline of Misreported Payments Freedom Mortgages actions have consistently distorted my payment history. Below is the timeline as reflected in my account statements, showing a pattern of erroneous reporting : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Statement shows {$0.00} owed. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX First statement with a balance post-forbearance. Indicates that in just 10 days, two months of mortgage payments are due.\n\nLists one month of Unapplied Funds still available.\n\nReflects one payment under Partial Payments Applied - Paid to Date, but this is not recorded in the \" Balance Due. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Shows two months of the mortgage as due. \nNo payment reflected in the Balance Due amount.\n\nOne payment is recorded in the transaction activity.\n\nRecords of both \" Unapplied Funds '' on reserve and \" Partial Payments Applied - Paid To Date '' have disappeared from the record, erasing any trace of two months ' worth of payments from the official record and creating a discrepancy between what was paid and whats being reported. \nThis is the month that they have consistently reported to the credit bureaus that they have NO XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Statement now shows three months due, with no history of any applied payments in the balance due.\n\nNo record of the \" Unapplied Funds '' or \" Partial Payments Applied - Paid to Date '' are listed or applied to reduce the balance. \nLate fees are added. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  : Statement shows three months due.\n\nPayment is not included in the balance due amount.\n\nThe transaction activity reflects one months payment. \nNo record of the \" Unapplied Funds '' or \" Partial Payments Applied - Paid to Date '' are listed or applied to reduce the balance. \nThis pattern demonstrates a clear attempt by Freedom Mortgage to misrepresent my payment history and create artificial delinquencies. \n\nFreedom Mortgage has mishandled payment reporting, recording payments in transaction activity but failing to include them in the balance due. They later reversed the late fees but refused to acknowledge the Unapplied Funds or the Partial Payments Applied to Date, which would cover two months of mortgage payments but decided to still report these missing payments to the credit bureau. \n\nFreedom Mortgage also retroactively altered statements, erasing past payment history. On a recent statement, the Recent Account History section reads as follows : Payment due XX/XX/XXXX : Fully paid on XX/XX/XXXX Payment due XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  Fully paid on time Payment due XX/XX/XXXX : Fully paid on XX/XX/XXXX Payment due XX/XX/XXXX : Unpaid balance of {$83.00} Payment due XX/XX/XXXX : Unpaid balance of {$2000.00} Payment due XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : Unpaid balance of {$2100.00} However, the statements issued on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX do not reflect this payment history : No statement was issued on XX/XX/XXXX with a due date of XX/XX/XXXX, which is standard. \nInstead, an XX/XX/XXXX statement claimed two months were due on XX/XX/XXXX, creating an artificial delinquency. \nContradictory entries show payments as \" fully paid '' on XX/XX/XXXX, yet with an unpaid balance for the same period. \nThe statement dated XX/XX/XXXX shows two months due, even though only one months mortgage payment was actually outstanding on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis inflated delinquency has been reported to credit bureaus, which severely distorts my payment history. \n\nExaggeration of Late Payments and VA Protections Freedom Mortgage then reported to credit bureaus based solely on inflated amounts shown in their statements, disregarding accurate transaction activity that reflects my actual payments. To worsen the impact, they exaggerated the severity of late payments by reporting 60-day late payments for months that should have been, at most, 30 days late, if at all. \n\nThis occurred while my VA-backed mortgage should have been protected under VA guidelines during post-forbearance. Freedom Mortgage has blatantly ignored these protections, compromising my financial standing and credit history. \n\nThese actions followed a series of prior errors by Freedom Mortgage, beginning with an erroneous foreclosure marking and mishandling of Homeowner Assistance Fund ( HAF ) funds. After accepting my HAF funds, Freedom Mortgage retroactively charged foreclosure fees for services that were never rendered. \n\nIn my direct inquiries with XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX firm Freedom Mortgage said was assigned to handle my foreclosurethe firm confirmed that they never received my file or conducted any foreclosure-related work on behalf of Freedom Mortgage because Freedom Mortgage canceled the request before they even received my file. Likewise, an appraiser confirmed on XX/XX/XXXX that Freedom Mortgage had canceled the appraisal without billing for any services. \n\nDespite no foreclosure services being rendered, Freedom Mortgage retroactively applied {$770.00} in fees after receiving my HAF funds, which led to a deficit amount in my Unapplied funds which impacted my expected month of coverage. I was always i in compliance with the loss mitigation program, yet Freedom Mortgage erroneously marked me as non-compliant, a status they later acknowledged as incorrect. \n\nDespite my consistent compliance, Freedom Mortgage 's repeated errorssuch as deleting unapplied funds, issuing contradictory statements, and imposing retroactive feeshave led to an ongoing and distorted representation of my payment history. \n\nFreedom Mortgage compounded this by reporting exaggerated delinquency timelines to the credit bureaus, disregarding the CARES Act protections that should have shielded my VA-backed mortgage. This complaint specifically addresses these recent actions, including their refusal to correct inaccurately reported late payments and the premature removal of my mortgage from protections due under VA guidelines as of XX/XX/XXXX. These actions have severely and unfairly impacted my credit profile, fabricating a delinquency history from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX \n\nFreedom Mortgage continues to report an inflated delinquency timeline to the credit bureaus, further harming my financial standing. This persistent pattern of mismanagement, inflated charges, and inaccurate reporting violates VA post-forbearance protections.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-04T02:46:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"77584","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10668585","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Freedom Mortgage Company","date_received":"2024-11-04T01:50:19.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Freedom Mortgage has not only inaccurately <em>reported</em> seven <em>alleged</em> <em>late</em> payments from XXXX but has also exaggerated the length of the claimed delinquency to credit bureaus from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This misrepresentation has impacted my credit profile and does not reflect my actual payment history."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your <em>report</em>"]},"sort":[8.883201,"10668585"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4403106","_score":7.5382657,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"THIS COMPLAINT IS FOR ME. IT IS NOT A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT. I have been trying to get XXXX and XXXX to remove the erroneous information reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX from my credit report. The information reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX were positive but I also wanted these removed from my credit report because they also were not valid. I decided that the only logical thing I could do was learn the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) because of their continued refusal to remove the information. The FDCPA referenced other Federal Acts and Statues. Eventually and inadvertently I found out about numerous violations of state and federal laws. They include but are not limited to : The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, ( RESPA ), Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act, Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 ( SAFE Act, Dodd-Frank Act, Illinois Notary Public Act 5 ILCS 312/Art. I, The Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws, TITLE 86 : REVENUE CHAPTER I : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PART 120 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX, etc. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX., XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Guaranteed Rate, Ravenswood Title, XXXX XXXX XXXX Ravenswood Title, XXXX XXXX  etc. filed Instruments ( Deeds, Mortgages, etc. ) that violated both state and federal laws with the XXXX County Recorder of Deeds. Numerous unknown employees of the XXXX County Recorder of Deeds accepted these void instruments for filing also in violation of law. I decided to check to see if the alleged mortgages were legal before, during and after the alleged mortgages were issued. Had the credit reporting agencies removed the information as they are legally required to do and if the Title was not clouded, I would have never found about the number violations committed by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Guaranteed Rate, Ravenswood Title , XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others. One of the most important things I learned was 5 ILCS 312/1-101 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 201-101 ) Sec. 1-101, Illinois Notary Public Act particularly ( 5 ILCS 312/6-104 ) Which states as follows : ( h ) NO NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE ANY LEGAL INSTRUMENT, OR FILL IN THE BLANKS OF AN INSTRUMENT, OTHER THAN A NOTARY CERTIFICATE ; however, this prohibition shall not prohibit an attorney, who is also a notary public, from performing notarial acts for any document prepared by that attorney. To check to see if the Legal Instrument such as a HUD-1 Settlement Statement was prepared by attorney go to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ( ARDC ) website and type in the name of the Settlement/Closing/Escrow Agent listed on the HUD-1 form. Sometimes a name will not be listed in that case check to see if the person who signed on the line that states, Settlement Agent is an attorney. After doing this you will find that legal Instruments such as the Mortgage, Note, HUD-1, etc were filled out and signed by a Notary meaning the none of the alleged documents are legally binding and are void without legal effect. What I have learned if one document fraudulent other documents are fraudulent too. FRAUDULENT MORTGAGE PROCEEDINGS At the time of this alleged mortgage closing allegedly took place Title Company, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX used a fraudulent form that : ( i ) that was not a valid HUD-1 Settlement Statement form, ( ii ) lacked an OMB Approval Number ( iii ) was not completed according to law ( iv ) is dated 3/86 ( XXXX XXXX ) ( in a tiny font ) ( v ) the pages are not numbered, etc. as EXHIBIT 4. This form was approximately 23 years old at the time the alleged XX/XX/XXXX mortgage was obtain. This would serve as a Red Herring because no legitimate title company would use a 23-year-old form. It should be noted that the HUD-1 Settlement Statements all contain a footer that states, previous edition are obsolete as shown below : Even if XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX form was valid and it was not even a second grader know that an obsolete form can not be used. It is common practice for people engaged in corrupt activities to use obsolete forms, therefore I checked the date. A check of the OMB website shows that between XXXX XXXX XXXX* that they were no 2502 HUD Settlement forms issued in XXXX. Form ( iii ) lacked page numbers, etc. I was not aware of the foregoing and following information for many reasons ( i ) I had an attorney. I recently found out that my attorney XXXX XXXX also works for XXXX XXXX XXXX as title agent, which is conflict of interest. He received money from me and from XXXX. Attorneys that buyers and sellers have to have at closing are a waste of money. Most are affiliated of XXXX XXXX XXXX and get kickbacks. Further, because of the fraud committed by the Title Insurance Companies and the banks they are required by law to pay for the cost of the home and any other costs incurred. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS Settlement means the process of executing legally binding documents regarding a lien on property that is subject to a federally related mortgage loan*. This process may also be called \" closing '' or \" escrow '' in different jurisdictions. *Federally related mortgage loan means : ( 1 ) Any loan ( other than temporary financing, such as a construction loan ) : ( 2 ) Any installment sales contract, land contract, or contract for deed on otherwise qualifying residential property is a federally related mortgage loan if the contract is funded in whole or in part by proceeds of a loan made by any maker of mortgage loans specified in paragraphs ( 1 ) ( ii ) ( A ) through ( D ) of this definition. 1024.8 USE OF HUD-1 OR HUD-1A SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS HUD -- 1 or HUD -- 1A settlement statement ( also HUD -- 1 or HUD -- 1A ) means the statement that is prescribed in this part for setting forth settlement charges in connection with either the purchase or the refinancing ( or other subordinate lien transaction ) of 1- to 4-family residential property. ( a ) Use by settlement agent. The settlement agent shall use the HUD-1 settlement statement in every settlement involving a federally related mortgage loan in which there is a borrower and a seller. For transactions in which there is a borrower and no seller, such as refinancing loans or subordinate lien loans, the HUD-1 may be utilized by using the borrower 's side of the HUD-1 statement. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS Settlement means the process of executing legally binding documents regarding a lien on property that is subject to a federally related mortgage loan. This process may also be called \" closing '' or \" escrow '' in different jurisdictions. Settlement service means any service provided in connection with a prospective or actual settlement, including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following : ( 1 ) Origination of a federally related mortgage loan ( including, but not limited to, the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and the underwriting and funding of such loans ) ; ( 2 ) Rendering of services by a mortgage broker ( including counseling, taking of applications, obtaining verifications and appraisals, and other loan processing and origination services, and communicating with the borrower and lender ) ; ( 3 ) Provision of any services related to the origination, processing or funding of a federally related mortgage loan ; ( 4 ) Provision of title services, including title searches, title examinations, abstract preparation, insurability determinations, and the issuance of title commitments and title insurance policies ; ( 5 ) Rendering of services by an attorney ; ( 6 ) Preparation of documents, including notarization, delivery, and recordation ; ... ( 9 ) Conducting of settlement by a settlement agent and any related services ; ( 10 ) Provision of services involving mortgage insurance ; ( 11 ) Provision of services involving hazard, flood, or other casualty insurance or homeowner 's warranties ; ... ( 13 ) Provision of services involving real property taxes or any other assessments or charges on the real property ; ( 14 ) Rendering of services by a real estate agent or real estate broker ; and ( 15 ) Provision of any other services for which a settlement service provider requires a borrower or seller to pay. BACKGROUND REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) was a law passed by the United States Congress in 1974 and codified as Title 12, Chapter 27 of the United States Code, 12 U.S.C. 26012617. The main objective was to protect homeowners by assisting them in becoming better educated while shopping for real estate services, and eliminating kickbacks and referral fees, which add unnecessary costs to settlement services. RESPA requires lenders and others involved in mortgage lending to provide borrowers with pertinent and timely disclosures regarding the nature and costs of a real estate settlement process. RESPA was also designed to prohibit potentially abusive practices such as kickbacks and referral fees, the practice of dual tracking, and imposes limitations on the use of escrow accounts. RESPA was created because various companies associated with the buying and selling of real estate, such as title insurance companies lenders, real estate agents, construction companies were often engaging in providing undisclosed kickbacks to each other, inflating the costs of real estate transactions and obscuring price competition by facilitating bait-and-switch tactics. RESPA outlines requirements that lenders must follow when providing mortgages that are secured by federally related mortgage loans. This includes home purchase loans, refinancing, lender approved assumptions, property improvement loans, equity lines of credit and reverse mortgages. Under RESPA, lending institutions must : Provide certain disclosures when applicable, including a Good-Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs ( GFE ), Special Information Booklet, HUD-1/1A settlement statement1 and Mortgage Servicing Disclosures. Provide the ability to compare the GFE to the HUD-1/1a settlement statements at closing Follow established escrow accounting practices Not proceed with the foreclosure process when the borrower has submitted a complete application for loss mitigation options, and Not pay kickbacks or pay referral fees to settlement service providers ( e.g., appraisers, real estate brokers/agents and title companies ) Good-Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs For closed-end reverse mortgages, a lender or broker is required to provide the consumer with the standard Good Faith Estimate ( GFE ) form. A Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs is a three-page document that shows estimates for the costs that the borrower will likely incur at settlement and related loan information. It is designed to allow borrowers to shop for a mortgage loan by comparing settlement costs and loan terms. These costs include, but are not limited to : Origination charges Estimates for required services ( e.g., appraisals, credit report fees, flood certification ) Title insurance Per diem interest Escrow deposits, and Insurance premiums The bank or mortgage broker must provide the GFE no later than three business days after the lender or mortgage broker received an application, or information sufficient to complete and application. A person may not give or receive a fee or anything of value for a referral of mortgage loan settlement business. This includes an agreement or understanding related to a federally related mortgage. Fees paid for mortgage-related services must be disclosed. Additionally, no person may give or receive any portion, split, or percentage of a fee for services connected with a federally related mortgage except for services actually performed. Permissible Compensation, Fees, salaries, compensation, or other payments. ( 1 ) Section 8 of RESPA permits : ( i ) A payment to an attorney at law for services actually rendered ; ( ii ) A payment by a title company to its duly appointed agent for services actually performed in the issuance of a policy of title insurance ; ( iii ) A payment by a lender to its duly appointed agent or contractor for services actually performed in the origination, processing, or funding of a loan ; ( iv ) ... In XXXX XXXX Congress amended RESPA to cover subordinate lien loans. Congress, when it enacted the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, it further amended RESPA to clarify certain definitions, including controlled business arrangement, which was changed to affiliated business arrangement. 1024.8 USE OF HUD-1 OR HUD-1A SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS ( a ) Use by settlement agent. The settlement agent shall use the HUD-1 settlement statement in every settlement involving a federally related mortgage loan in which there is a borrower and a seller. For transactions in which there is a borrower and no seller, such as refinancing loans or subordinate lien loans, the HUD-1 may be utilized by using the borrower 's side of the HUD-1 statement. ( b ) Charges to be stated. The settlement agent shall complete the HUD-1 or HUD-1A, in accordance with the instructions set forth in appendix A to this part. ( 1 ) In general. The settlement agent shall state the actual charges paid by the borrower and seller on the HUD-1, or by the borrower on the HUD-1A. The settlement agent must separately itemize each third party charge paid by the borrower and seller. All origination services performed by or on behalf of the loan originator must be included in the loan originator 's own charge. Administrative and processing services related to title services must be included in the title underwriter 's or title agent 's own charge. The amount stated on the HUD-1 or HUD-1A for any itemized service can not exceed the amount actually received by the settlement service provider for that itemized service, unless the charge is an average charge in accordance with paragraph ( b ) ( 2 ) of this section ... ( ii ) The settlement service provider shall define the particular class of transactions for purposes of calculating the average charge as all transactions involving federally related mortgage loans for : ( A ) A period of time as determined by the settlement service provider, but not less than 30 calendar days and not more than 6 months ; ( B ) A geographic area as determined by the settlement service provider ; and ( C ) A type of loan as determined by the settlement service provider. ( iii ) A settlement service provider may use an average charge in the same class of transactions for which the charge was calculated. If the settlement service provider uses the average charge for any transaction in the class, the settlement service provider must use the same average charge in every transaction within that class for which a GFE was provided. ( iv ) The use of an average charge is not permitted for any settlement service if the charge for the service is based on the loan amount or property value. For example, an average charge may not be used for transfer taxes, interest charges, reserves or escrow, or any type of insurance, including mortgage insurance, title insurance, or hazard insurance. ( c ) Violations of section 4 of RESPA ( 12 U.S.C. 2603 ). A violation of any of the requirements of this section will be deemed to be a violation of section 4 of RESPA. An inadvertent or technical error in completing the HUD-1 or HUD-1A shall not be deemed a violation of section 4 of RESPA if a revised HUD-1 or HUD-1A is provided in accordance with the requirements of this section within 30 calendar days after settlement. VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4 OF RESPA ( 12 U.S.C. 2603 ) A violation of any of the requirements of this section will be deemed to be a violation of section 4 of RESPA. In 2008, HUD issued a RESPA Reform Rule ( 73 Fed. Reg. 68204, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that included substantive and technical changes to the existing RESPA regulations and different implementation dates for various provisions. Substantive changes included a standard Good Faith Estimate ( GFE ) form and a revised HUD-1 Settlement Statement. TechnicaXXXX changes, including streamlined mortgage servicing disclosure language, elimination of outdated escrow account provisions and a provision permitting an average charge to be listed on the GFE and HUD-1 Settlement Statement, took effect on XXXX XXXX XXXX. Key XXXX RESPA Reform Enhancements to the HUD- 1/1A Settlement Statement While the XXXX RESPA Reform Rule did not include any substantive changes to the first page of the HUD-1/1A form, there were changes to the second page of the form to facilitate comparison between the HUD-1/1A and the GFE. Each designated line on the second page of the revised HUD- 1/1A includes a reference to the relevant line from the GFE. With respect to disclosure of no cost loans where no cost refers only to the loan originators fees ( see Section L, subsection 800 of the HUD-1 form ), the amounts shown for the origination charge and the credit or charge for the interest rate chosen should offset, so that the adjusted origination charge is zero. In the case of a no cost loan where no cost encompasses loan originator and third-party fees, all third-party fees must be itemized and listed in the borrowers column on the HUD- 1/1A. These itemized charges must be offset with a negative adjusted origination charge ( Line 803 ) and recorded in the columns. To further facilitate comparability between the forms, the revised HUD-1 includes a third page ( second page of the HUD-1A ) that allows borrowers to compare the loan terms and settlement charges listed on the GFE with the terms and charges listed on the closing statement. The first half of the third page includes a comparison chart that sets forth the settlement charges from the GFE and the settlement charges from the HUD-1 to allow the borrower to easily determine whether the settlement charges exceed the charges stated on the GFE. If any charges at settlement exceed the charges listed on the GFE by more than the permitted tolerances, the loan originator may cure the tolerance violation by reimbursing to the borrower the amount by which the tolerance was exceeded. A borrower will be deemed to have received timely reimbursement if the financial institution delivers or places the payment in the mail within 30 calendar days after settlement. Inadvertent or technical errors on the settlement statement are not deemed to be a violation of Section 4 of RESPA if a revised HUD-1/1A is provided to the borrower within 30 calendar days after settlement. The second half of the third page sets forth the loan terms for the loan received at settlement in a format that reflects the summary of loan terms on the first page of the GFE, but with additional loan related information that would be available at closing. Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 ( SAFE Act ) was enacted on XXXX XXXX XXXX  and mandates a nationwide licensing and registration system for residential mortgage loan originators ( MLOs ) The SAFE Act prohibits individuals from engaging in the business of a residential mortgage loan originator without first obtaining and maintaining annually : For individuals who are employees of covered financial institution, registration as a registered mortgage loan originator and a unique identifier ( federal registration ), or For all other individuals, a state license and registration as a state-licensed mortgage loan originator, and a unique identifier ( state licensing/registration ). The SAFE Act requires that federal registration and state licensing and registration be accomplished through the same online registration system, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ( Registry ). The objectives of the SAFE Act include aggregating and improving the flow of information to and between regulators ; providing increased accountability and tracking of MLOs ; enhancing consumer protections ; supporting anti-fraud measures ; and providing consumers with easily accessible information at no charge regarding the employment history of and publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against MLOs. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, the OCC, Board, FDIC, OTS, NCUA, and FCA ( collectively the Agencies ) published substantively similar regulations implementing the SAFE Act federal registration requirements for the institutions they supervise and the institutions MLO employees ( SAFE Act regulation ). On July 21, 2011, Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd-Frank Act ) transferred rule-making authority for the SAFE Act from the Agencies to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). On December 19, 2011, the CFPB restated the implementing SAFE Act regulations to 12 CFR 1007 ( 76 Federal Register 78483 ), establishing a new Regulation G, SAFE Mortgage Licensing ActFederal Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators. These examination procedures lay out the background and requirements of the SAFE Act and the SAFE Act regulation concerning federal registration. Mortgage loan originator or MLO means an individual who ( 1 ) takes a residential mortgage loan application and ( 2 ) offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain. Registry means the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, or NMLS system, developed and maintained by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators for the state licensing and registration of state- licensed MLOs, and through which federal MLO registrations must be accomplished. Registered mortgage loan originator or registrant means any individual who ( 1 ) meets the MLO definition ; ( 2 ) is an employee of a covered financial institution ; ( 3 ) is registered pursuant to the regulation with the Registry ; and ( 4 ) maintains a unique identifier through the Registry. Residential mortgage loan means any loan primarily for personal, family, or household use that is secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling ( as defined in Section 103 ( v ) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1602 ( v ) ) or residential real estate upon which is constructed or intended to be constructed a dwelling ( including manufactured homes ) and includes refinancings, reverse mortgages, home equity lines of credit, and other first and additional lien loans. Unique identifier means a number or other identifier that : ( 1 ) permanently identifies a registered MLO ; ( 2 ) is assigned by protocols established by the Registry and the Bureau to facilitate electronic tracking of MLOs, as well as uniform identification of, and public access to, the employment history of and the publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against MLOs ; and ( 3 ) must not be used for purposes other than those set forth under the SAFE Act. ; TILA, GSE, and HUD Requirements Title XIV, Section 1402 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) to require ( 1 ) MLOs to include on all loan documents any unique identifier of the MLO provided by the NMLS, and ( 2 ) the CFPB to issue implementing regulations requiring depository institutions to establish and maintain procedures reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the SAFE Acts federal registration requirements. Illinois Notary Public Act ( Source : P.A. 86-1475 ( 5 ILCS 312/Art. I heading ) ARTICLE I ) to promote, serve, and protect the public interest. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX both work for Illinois Secretary of States Office XXXX XXXX XXXX is employed as the Chief Judge for the Illinois Court of Claims. XXXX XXXX is XXXX XXXX boss. XXXX has donated hundreds of thousand dollars to his campaigns. XXXX has also been CEO of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attends XXXX parties, etc. XXXX XXXXe was elected as the XXXX County Recorder of Deeds in XXXX and XXXX. The foregoing is important because the Illinois Secretary of State is responsible of issuing notary licensees and disciplinary actions against. Needless, to say the notaries that work for most of these banks and title agencies are fully aware that, XXXX XXXX  Attorney General XXXX XXXX  and so many others work for the interest of the banks and XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( 5 ILCS 312/1-104 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 201-104 ) Sec. 1-104. Notary Public and Notarization Defined. ( a ) The terms \" notary public '' and \" notary '' are used interchangeably to mean any individual appointed and commissioned to perform notarial acts. ( b ) \" Notarization '' means the performance of a notarial act. ( 5 ILCS 312/2-102 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 202-102 ) Sec. 2-102. Application. Every applicant for appointment and commission as a notary shall complete an application in a format prescribed by the Secretary of State to be filed with the Secretary of State, stating : ( a ) the applicant 's official name, as it appears on his or her current driver 's license or state-issued identification card ; ( b ) the county in which the applicant resides or, if the applicant is a resident of a state bordering Illinois, the county in Illinois in which that person 's principal place of work or principal place of business is located ; ( c ) the applicant 's residence address, as it appears on his or her current driver 's license or state-issued identification card ; ( c-5 ) the applicant 's business address if different than the applicant 's residence address, if performing notarial acts constitutes any portion of the applicant 's job duties ; ( 5 ILCS 312/3-102 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 203-102 ) Sec. 3-102. Notarial Record ; Residential Real Property Transactions. ( a ) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO EVERY NOTARIAL ACT IN ILLINOIS INVOLVING A DOCUMENT OF CONVEYANCE THAT TRANSFERS OR PURPORTS TO TRANSFER TITLE TO RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN COOK COUNTY ( b ) As used in this Section, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them : ( 1 ) \" Document of Conveyance '' shall mean a written instrument that transfers or purports to transfer title effecting a change in ownership to Residential Real Property. ( 3 ) \" Notarial Record '' shall mean the written document created in conformity with this Section by a notary in connection with Documents of Conveyance. SEE THE ATTACHED PDF 'S","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-25T05:33:48.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60630","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4403106","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GUARANTEED RATE INC.","date_received":"2021-05-25T00:47:23.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I decided to check to see if the <em>alleged</em> mortgages were legal before, during and after the <em>alleged</em> mortgages were issued."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on your <em>report</em>"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"]},"sort":[7.5382657,"4403106"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4402901","_score":7.53275,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"THIS COMPLAINT IS FOR ME. IT IS NOT A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT. \n\nI have been trying to get XXXX and Experian to remove the erroneous information reported by XXXX dba XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX Bank XXXX my credit report. The information reported by XXXX XXXX Bank and XXXX were positive but I also wanted these removed from my credit report because they also were not valid. \n\nI decided that the only logical thing I could do was learn the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) because of their continued refusal to remove the information. The FDCPA referenced other Federal Acts and Statues. Eventually and inadvertently I found out about numerous violations of state and federal laws. They include but are not limited to : The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, ( RESPA ), Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act, Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of XXXX ( SAFE Act, Dodd-Frank Act, Illinois Notary Public Act 5 ILCS 312/Art. I, The Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws, TITLE 86 : REVENUE CHAPTER I : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PART 120 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX, etc. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, etc. filed Instruments ( Deeds, Mortgages, etc. ) that violated both state and federal laws with the XXXX County Recorder of Deeds. Numerous unknown employees of the XXXX County Recorder of Deeds accepted these void instruments for filing also in violation of law. \n\nI decided to check to see if the alleged mortgages were legal before, during and after the alleged mortgages were issued. Had the credit reporting agencies removed the information as they are legally required to do and if the Title was not clouded, I would have never found about the number violations committed by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX/ dba XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX  , XXXX  XXXX XXXX  , XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX and others. \n\nXXXX of the most important things I learned was 5 ILCS 312/1-101 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 201-101 ) Sec. 1-101, Illinois Notary Public Act particularly ( 5 ILCS 312/6-104 ) Which states as follows : ( h ) NO NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE ANY LEGAL INSTRUMENT, OR FILL IN THE BLANKS OF AN INSTRUMENT, OTHER THAN A NOTARY CERTIFICATE ; however, this prohibition shall not prohibit an attorney, who is also a notary public, from performing notarial acts for any document prepared by that attorney. To check to see if the Legal Instrument such as a HUD-1 Settlement Statement was prepared by attorney go to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ( ARDC ) website and type in the name of the Settlement/Closing/Escrow Agent listed on the HUD-1 form. Sometimes a name will not be listed in that case check to see if the person who signed on the line that states, Settlement Agent is an attorney. After doing this you will find that legal Instruments such as the Mortgage, Note, HUD-1, etc were filled out and signed by a Notary meaning the none of the alleged documents are legally binding and are void without legal effect. What I have learned if one document fraudulent other documents are fraudulent too.\n\nFRAUDULENT MORTGAGE PROCEEDINGS At the time of this alleged mortgage closing allegedly took place Title Company, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX used a fraudulent form that : ( i ) that was not a valid HUD-1 Settlement Statement form, ( ii ) lacked an OMB Approval Number ( iii ) was not completed according to law ( iv ) is dated XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( in a tiny font ) ( v ) the pages are not numbered, etc. as EXHIBIT 4. This form was approximately 23 years old at the time the alleged XX/XX/XXXX mortgage was obtain. This would serve as a XXXX XXXX because no legitimate title company would use a 23-year-old form. \nIt should be noted that the HUD-1 Settlement Statements all contain a footer that states, previous edition are obsolete as shown below : Even if ATG/XXXX XXXX XXXX form was valid and it was not even a second grader know that an obsolete form can not be used. \n\nIt is common practice for people engaged in corrupt activities to use obsolete forms, therefore I checked the date. A check of the OMB website shows that between XXXX to XXXX that they were no 2502 HUD Settlement forms issued in XXXX. Form ( iii ) lacked page numbers, etc. I was not aware of the foregoing and following information for many reasons ( i ) I had an attorney. I recently found out that my attorney XXXX XXXX also works for ATG/XXXX XXXX XXXX as title agent, which is conflict of interest. He received money from me and from ATG. Attorneys that buyers and sellers have to have at closing are a waste of money. Most are affiliated of XXXX XXXX XXXX and get kickbacks. \n\nFurther, because of the fraud committed by the Title Insurance Companies and the banks they are required by law to pay for the cost of the home and any other costs incurred. \n\nTHE SETTLEMENT PROCESS Settlement means the process of executing legally binding documents regarding a lien on property that is subject to a federally related mortgage loan*. This process may also be called \" closing '' or \" escrow '' in different jurisdictions.\n\n*Federally related mortgage loan means : ( 1 ) Any loan ( other than temporary financing, such as a construction loan ) : ( 2 ) Any installment sales contract, land contract, or contract for deed on otherwise qualifying residential property is a federally related mortgage loan if the contract is funded in whole or in part by proceeds of a loan made by any maker of mortgage loans specified in paragraphs ( 1 ) ( ii ) ( A ) through ( D ) of this definition.\n\n1024.8 USE OF HUD-1 OR HUD-1A SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS HUD -- 1 or HUD -- 1A settlement statement ( also HUD -- 1 or HUD -- 1A ) means the statement that is prescribed in this part for setting forth settlement charges in connection with either the purchase or the refinancing ( or other subordinate lien transaction ) of 1- to 4-family residential property.\n\n( a ) Use by settlement agent. The settlement agent shall use the HUD-1 settlement statement in every settlement involving a federally related mortgage loan in which there is a borrower and a seller. For transactions in which there is a borrower and no seller, such as refinancing loans or subordinate lien loans, the HUD-1 may be utilized by using the borrower 's side of the HUD-1 statement.\n\nTHE SETTLEMENT PROCESS Settlement means the process of executing legally binding documents regarding a lien on property that is subject to a federally related mortgage loan. This process may also be called \" closing '' or \" escrow '' in different jurisdictions.\n\nSettlement service means any service provided in connection with a prospective or actual settlement, including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following : ( 1 ) Origination of a federally related mortgage loan ( including, but not limited to, the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and the underwriting and funding of such loans ) ; ( 2 ) Rendering of services by a mortgage broker ( including counseling, taking of applications, obtaining verifications and appraisals, and other loan processing and origination services, and communicating with the borrower and lender ) ; ( 3 ) Provision of any services related to the origination, processing or funding of a federally related mortgage loan ; ( 4 ) Provision of title services, including title searches, title examinations, abstract preparation, insurability determinations, and the issuance of title commitments and title insurance policies ; ( 5 ) Rendering of services by an attorney ; ( 6 ) Preparation of documents, including notarization, delivery, and recordation ; ...\n\n( 9 ) Conducting of settlement by a settlement agent and any related services ; ( 10 ) Provision of services involving mortgage insurance ; ( 11 ) Provision of services involving hazard, flood, or other casualty insurance or homeowner 's warranties ; ...\n\n( 13 ) Provision of services involving real property taxes or any other assessments or charges on the real property ; ( 14 ) Rendering of services by a real estate agent or real estate broker ; and ( 15 ) Provision of any other services for which a settlement service provider requires a borrower or seller to pay. \n\nBACKGROUND REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) was a law passed by the United States Congress in XXXX and codified as Title 12, Chapter 27 of the United States Code, 12 U.S.C. 26012617. The main objective was to protect homeowners by assisting them in becoming better educated while shopping for real estate services, and eliminating kickbacks and referral fees, which add unnecessary costs to settlement services. RESPA requires lenders and others involved in mortgage lending to provide borrowers with pertinent and timely disclosures regarding the nature and costs of a real estate settlement process. RESPA was also designed to prohibit potentially abusive practices such as kickbacks and referral fees, the practice of dual tracking, and imposes limitations on the use of escrow accounts. \n\nRESPA was created because various companies associated with the buying and selling of real estate, such as title insurance companies lenders, real estate agents, construction companies were often engaging in providing undisclosed kickbacks to each other, inflating the costs of real estate transactions and obscuring price competition by facilitating bait-and-switch tactics. \n\nRESPA outlines requirements that lenders must follow when providing mortgages that are secured by federally related mortgage loans. This includes home purchase loans, refinancing, lender approved assumptions, property improvement loans, equity lines of credit and reverse mortgages. \n\nUnder RESPA, lending institutions must : Provide certain disclosures when applicable, including a Good-Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs ( GFE ), Special Information Booklet, HUD-1/1A settlement statement1 and Mortgage Servicing Disclosures.\n\nProvide the ability to compare the GFE to the HUD-1/1a settlement statements at closing Follow established escrow accounting practices Not proceed with the foreclosure process when the borrower has submitted a complete application for loss mitigation options, and Not pay kickbacks or pay referral fees to settlement service providers ( e.g., appraisers, real estate brokers/agents and title companies ) Good-Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs For closed-end reverse mortgages, a lender or broker is required to provide the consumer with the standard Good Faith Estimate ( GFE ) form. \n\nA Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs is a three-page document that shows estimates for the costs that the borrower will likely incur at settlement and related loan information. It is designed to allow borrowers to shop for a mortgage loan by comparing settlement costs and loan terms. These costs include, but are not limited to : Origination charges Estimates for required services ( e.g., appraisals, credit report fees, flood certification ) Title insurance Per diem interest Escrow deposits, and Insurance premiums The bank or mortgage broker must provide the GFE no later than three business days after the lender or mortgage broker received an application, or information sufficient to complete and application.\n\nA person may not give or receive a fee or anything of value for a referral of mortgage loan settlement business. This includes an agreement or understanding related to a federally related mortgage. Fees paid for mortgage-related services must be disclosed. Additionally, no person may give or receive any portion, split, or percentage of a fee for services connected with a federally related mortgage except for services actually performed.\n\nPermissible Compensation, Fees, salaries, compensation, or other payments. ( 1 ) Section 8 of RESPA permits : ( i ) A payment to an attorney at law for services actually rendered ; ( ii ) A payment by a title company to its duly appointed agent for services actually performed in the issuance of a policy of title insurance ; ( iii ) A payment by a lender to its duly appointed agent or contractor for services actually performed in the origination, processing, or funding of a loan ; ( iv ) ... \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, Congress amended RESPA to cover subordinate lien loans. \nCongress, when it enacted the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of XXXX, it further amended RESPA to clarify certain definitions, including controlled business arrangement, which was changed to affiliated business arrangement. \n\n\n1024.8 USE OF HUD-1 OR HUD-1A SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS ( a ) Use by settlement agent. The settlement agent shall use the HUD-1 settlement statement in every settlement involving a federally related mortgage loan in which there is a borrower and a seller. For transactions in which there is a borrower and no seller, such as refinancing loans or subordinate lien loans, the HUD-1 may be utilized by using the borrower 's side of the HUD-1 statement.\n\n( b ) Charges to be stated. The settlement agent shall complete the HUD-1 or HUD-1A, in accordance with the instructions set forth in appendix A to this part. \n\n( 1 ) In general. The settlement agent shall state the actual charges paid by the borrower and seller on the HUD-1, or by the borrower on the HUD-1A. The settlement agent must separately itemize each third party charge paid by the borrower and seller. All origination services performed by or on behalf of the loan originator must be included in the loan originator 's own charge. Administrative and processing services related to title services must be included in the title underwriter 's or title agent 's own charge. The amount stated on the HUD-1 or HUD-1A for any itemized service can not exceed the amount actually received by the settlement service provider for that itemized service, unless the charge is an average charge in accordance with paragraph ( b ) ( 2 ) of this section ...\n\n( ii ) The settlement service provider shall define the particular class of transactions for purposes of calculating the average charge as all transactions involving federally related mortgage loans for : ( A ) A period of time as determined by the settlement service provider, but not less than 30 calendar days and not more than 6 months ; ( B ) A geographic area as determined by the settlement service provider ; and ( C ) A type of loan as determined by the settlement service provider. \n\n( iii ) A settlement service provider may use an average charge in the same class of transactions for which the charge was calculated. If the settlement service provider uses the average charge for any transaction in the class, the settlement service provider must use the same average charge in every transaction within that class for which a GFE was provided.\n\n( iv ) The use of an average charge is not permitted for any settlement service if the charge for the service is based on the loan amount or property value. For example, an average charge may not be used for transfer taxes, interest charges, reserves or escrow, or any type of insurance, including mortgage insurance, title insurance, or hazard insurance.\n\n( c ) Violations of section 4 of RESPA ( 12 U.S.C. 2603 ). A violation of any of the requirements of this section will be deemed to be a violation of section 4 of RESPA. An inadvertent or technical error in completing the HUD-1 or HUD-1A shall not be deemed a violation of section 4 of RESPA if a revised HUD-1 or HUD-1A is provided in accordance with the requirements of this section within 30 calendar days after settlement.\n\nVIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4 OF RESPA ( 12 U.S.C. 2603 ) A violation of any of the requirements of this section will be deemed to be a violation of section 4 of RESPA. \n\nIn XXXX, HUD issued a RESPA Reform Rule ( 73 Fed. Reg. 68204, XX/XX/XXXX ) that included substantive and technical changes to the existing RESPA regulations and different implementation dates for various provisions. Substantive changes included a standard Good Faith Estimate ( GFE ) form and a revised HUD-1 Settlement Statement.\n\nTechnical changes, including streamlined mortgage servicing disclosure language, elimination of outdated escrow account provisions and a provision permitting an average charge to be listed on the GFE and HUD-1 Settlement Statement, took effect on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nKey XXXX RESPA Reform Enhancements to the HUD- 1/1A Settlement Statement While the XXXX RESPA Reform Rule did not include any substantive changes to the first page of the HUD-1/1A form, there were changes to the second page of the form to facilitate comparison between the HUD-1/1A and the GFE. Each designated line on the second page of the revised HUD- 1/1A includes a reference to the relevant line from the GFE. \n\nWith respect to disclosure of no cost loans where no cost refers only to the loan originators fees ( see Section L, subsection 800 of the HUD-1 form ), the amounts shown for the origination charge and the credit or charge for the interest rate chosen should offset, so that the adjusted origination charge is zero.\n\nIn the case of a no cost loan where no cost encompasses loan originator and third-party fees, all third-party fees must be itemized and listed in the borrowers column on the HUD- 1/1A. These itemized charges must be offset with a negative adjusted origination charge ( Line 803 ) and recorded in the columns. \n\nTo further facilitate comparability between the forms, the revised HUD-1 includes a third page ( second page of the HUD-1A ) that allows borrowers to compare the loan terms and settlement charges listed on the GFE with the terms and charges listed on the closing statement. The first half of the third page includes a comparison chart that sets forth the settlement charges from the GFE and the settlement charges from the HUD-1 to allow the borrower to easily determine whether the settlement charges exceed the charges stated on the GFE. If any charges at settlement exceed the charges listed on the GFE by more than the permitted tolerances, the loan originator may cure the tolerance violation by reimbursing to the borrower the amount by which the tolerance was exceeded. A borrower will be deemed to have received timely reimbursement if the financial institution delivers or places the payment in the mail within 30 calendar days after settlement.\n\nInadvertent or technical errors on the settlement statement are not deemed to be a violation of Section 4 of RESPA if a revised HUD-1/1A is provided to the borrower within 30 calendar days after settlement.\n\nThe second half of the third page sets forth the loan terms for the loan received at settlement in a format that reflects the summary of loan terms on the first page of the GFE, but with additional loan related information that would be available at closing. \n\nSecure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of XXXX ( SAFE Act ) was enacted on XX/XX/XXXX and mandates a nationwide licensing and registration system for residential mortgage loan originators ( MLOs ) The SAFE Act prohibits individuals from engaging in the business of a residential mortgage loan originator without first obtaining and maintaining annually : For individuals who are employees of covered financial institution, registration as a registered mortgage loan originator and a unique identifier ( federal registration ), or For all other individuals, a state license and registration as a state-licensed mortgage loan originator, and a unique identifier ( state licensing/registration ). \n\nThe SAFE Act requires that federal registration and state licensing and registration be accomplished through the same online registration system, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ( Registry ). \n\nThe objectives of the SAFE Act include aggregating and improving the flow of information to and between regulators ; providing increased accountability and tracking of MLOs ; enhancing consumer protections ; supporting anti-fraud measures ; and providing consumers with easily accessible information at no charge regarding the employment history of and publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against MLOs. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the OCC, Board, FDIC, OTS, NCUA, and FCA ( collectively the Agencies ) published substantively similar regulations implementing the SAFE Act federal registration requirements for the institutions they supervise and the institutions MLO employees ( SAFE Act regulation ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd-Frank Act ) transferred rule-making authority for the SAFE Act from the Agencies to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB restated the implementing SAFE Act regulations to 12 CFR 1007 ( 76 Federal Register 78483 ), establishing a new Regulation G, SAFE Mortgage Licensing ActFederal Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators.\n\nThese examination procedures lay out the background and requirements of the SAFE Act and the SAFE Act regulation concerning federal registration. \n\nMortgage loan originator or MLO means an individual who ( 1 ) takes a residential mortgage loan application and ( 2 ) offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain.\n\nRegistry means the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, or NMLS system, developed and maintained by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators for the state licensing and registration of state- licensed MLOs, and through which federal MLO registrations must be accomplished.\n\nRegistered mortgage loan originator or registrant means any individual who ( 1 ) meets the MLO definition ; ( 2 ) is an employee of a covered financial institution ; ( 3 ) is registered pursuant to the regulation with the Registry ; and ( 4 ) maintains a unique identifier through the Registry.\n\nResidential mortgage loan means any loan primarily for personal, family, or household use that is secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling ( as defined in Section 103 ( v ) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1602 ( v ) ) or residential real estate upon which is constructed or intended to be constructed a dwelling ( including manufactured homes ) and includes refinancings, reverse mortgages, home equity lines of credit, and other first and additional lien loans. \n\nUnique identifier means a number or other identifier that : ( 1 ) permanently identifies a registered MLO ; ( 2 ) is assigned by protocols established by the Registry and the Bureau to facilitate electronic tracking of MLOs, as well as uniform identification of, and public access to, the employment history of and the publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against MLOs ; and ( 3 ) must not be used for purposes other than those set forth under the SAFE Act. ; TILA, GSE, and HUD Requirements Title XIV, Section 1402 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) to require ( 1 ) MLOs to include on all loan documents any unique identifier of the MLO provided by the NMLS, and ( 2 ) the CFPB to issue implementing regulations requiring depository institutions to establish and maintain procedures reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the SAFE Acts federal registration requirements. \n\nIllinois Notary Public Act ( Source : XXXX. XXXX ( 5 ILCS 312/Art. I heading ) ARTICLE I ) to promote, serve, and protect the public interest. \n\nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX both work for Illinois Secretary of States Office XXXX XXXX XXXX is employed as the Chief Judge for the Illinois Court of Claims. XXXX XXXX is XXXX XXXX boss. ATG has donated hundreds of thousand dollars to his campaigns. XXXX has also been CEO of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX attends XXXX parties, etc. \n\nXXXX XXXX was elected as the XXXX County Recorder of Deeds in XXXX and XXXX. The foregoing is important because the Illinois Secretary of State is responsible of issuing notary licensees and disciplinary actions against. Needless, to say the notaries that work for most of these banks and title agencies are fully aware that, XXXX XXXX Attorney General XXXX XXXX and so many others work for the interest of the banks and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n( 5 ILCS 312/1-104 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 201-104 ) Sec. 1-104. Notary Public and Notarization Defined.\n\n( a ) The terms \" notary public '' and \" notary '' are used interchangeably to mean any individual appointed and commissioned to perform notarial acts.\n\n( b ) \" Notarization '' means the performance of a notarial act.\n\n( 5 ILCS 312/2-102 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 202-102 ) Sec. 2-102. Application. Every applicant for appointment and commission as a notary shall complete an application in a format prescribed by the Secretary of State to be filed with the Secretary of State, stating : ( a ) the applicant 's official name, as it appears on his or her current driver 's license or state-issued identification card ; ( b ) the county in which the applicant resides or, if the applicant is a resident of a state bordering Illinois, the county in Illinois in which that person 's principal place of work or principal place of business is located ; ( c ) the applicant 's residence address, as it appears on his or her current driver 's license or state-issued identification card ; ( c-5 ) the applicant 's business address if different than the applicant 's residence address, if performing notarial acts constitutes any portion of the applicant 's job duties ; ( 5 ILCS 312/3-102 ) ( from Ch. 102, par. 203-102 ) Sec. 3-102. Notarial Record ; Residential Real Property Transactions. ( a ) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO EVERY NOTARIAL ACT IN ILLINOIS INVOLVING A DOCUMENT OF CONVEYANCE THAT TRANSFERS OR PURPORTS TO TRANSFER TITLE TO RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN XXXX COUNTY ( b ) As used in this Section, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them : ( 1 ) \" Document of Conveyance '' shall mean a written instrument that transfers or purports to transfer title effecting a change in ownership to Residential Real Property.\n\n( 3 ) \" Notarial Record '' shall mean the written document created in conformity with this Section by a notary in connection with Documents of Conveyance.\n\nSEE THE ATTACHED PDF 'S","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-25T04:01:35.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60630","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4402901","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-05-25T00:01:32.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I decided to check to see if the <em>alleged</em> mortgages were legal before, during and after the <em>alleged</em> mortgages were issued."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with a credit <em>reporting</em> company's investigation into an existing problem"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"]},"sort":[7.53275,"4402901"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10717011","_score":6.022111,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"OUR COMPLAINT\nI XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  United States of\nAmerican I XXXX, have look at my credit report and see that there are\ninaccurate reports on my account child support dont not report to credit reporters and by\nlawful cancellation all contracts and remove theses accounts off my credit profile I will like a\ncontract to show that me a living soul that me and them the other party showed in contact\nwhere we both agreed upon on all disclosure must be showed its a invalid contract please\nremove from my credit report it have hinder me from my future benefits. UCC 1-308 without\nprejudice Please remove these accounts immediately. I Recently viewed my credit report\nand saw that there is incorrect information on my credit report. In accordance with the Fair\nCredit Reporting act. These accounts is inaccurate and dont have no contract with me or\ndid not notify me or put me on notice that was going to report these accounts on my credit\nreport. I have the rights to private I will love equity for all the inaccurate accounts on my\ncredit report.The List of accounts below has violated my federally protected consumer rights\nto privacy and confidentiality under 15 USC 1681. I HAVE NOTICE THESE NAMES AND\nADDRESSES XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not my address DO NOT BELONG TO ME CAN YOU\nPLEASE REMOVE THIS ADDRESS FROM MY INFORMATION ON MY CREDIT REPORT\nIMMEDIATELY. : I have tried time after times delete this\noff my credit report immediately this is not acting in good Faith by law to delete this account immediately yes deleted this account IMMEDIATELY . (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trans Union have removed and deleted this child support. I would this is my XXXX  time contacting \nXXXX  to deleted it and they put it back in my credit report its a VIOLATION by law thats\nillegal I will like for these accounts to be deleted and remove this account immediately. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, has\nviolated my rights. 15 U.S.C 6802 (B) The consumer is given the opportunity, before the time\nthat such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX  such XXXX  party; and (C)the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can\nexercise that nondisclosure option. 15 U.S.C 1681 section 602 A. States I have the right to\nprivacy. 15 U.S.C 1681 Section 604 A Section 2: It also states a consumer reporting agency\ncannot furnish an account without my written instructions. 15 U.S.C 1681c. (a)(5) Section\nStates: no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the\nfollowing items of information Any other adverse item of information, other than records of\nconvictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. 15 U.S.C 1681\nsection 623 If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified by the furnisher for\nsuch notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact,\ninaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section\n623(a)(1)(B). 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (A)(1) A person shall not furnish any information relating to a\nconsumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause\nto believe that the information is inaccurate. Also the credit bureaus failed to do a complete\na full investigation here is my certified cfpb complaint number. I HAVE TRYING CALLING\nAND MORE AND HAVE NOT GOT NOT MAIL TO UPDATE ME ON MY credit profile and I\ndont not want the reporting any thing for me on my credit account I am a living man I can\nconduct my own business and have the right to privacy bay law UCC I SEE THEY ARE FAILED TO COMPLETE A FULL investigation. You have 4 days to delete this from my account immediately its hurt my credit profile from getting a response please to live and depender automobile to travel XXXX XXXX XXXX is my correct name this is a\nviolation. I want this these account CLOSE\n WITH MONETARY RELIEF. They had fail to mail or\nemail me a FRA Letter explaining my rights and show me proof of my wet signature.. Please\nremove ALL HARD INQUIRIES I DUD NOT RECEIVED ANY THING FOR TRANSACTION \n\nTN XXXX XXXX XXXX HAVE VIOLATED MY RIGHTS [TRANSUNION PLEASE DELETE OR UPDATE LATE PAYMENT TO PAID XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX HAVE VIOLATED MY RIGHT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have VIOLATED MY RIGHTS I WIL LIKE XXXX dollar for every violation its stopped me from gettIng a place to live and I have already sent letters and emails no response back delete these accounts immediately IMMEDIATE AND SEND CHECK BY MAIL. These accounts dose not match on all credit reports please delete 15 US\n\n15 U.S. Code  1681i\n- Procedure in case of disputed accuracy (5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable\ninformation (A) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information\ndisputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete\nor cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall (i) promptly delete that item of\ninformation from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate,\nbased on the results of the reinvestigation; and (ii) promptly notify the furnisher of that\ninformation that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the\nconsumer. 15 U.S. Code  1681q - Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person\nwho knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting\nagency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than XXXX\nyears, or both. 15 U.S. Code  1666b - Timing of payments (a) Time to make payments A\ncreditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer\ncredit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures\ndesigned to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by\nsection 1637(b) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than XXXX  days\nbefore the payment due date. (b) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan\nprovides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit\nextended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge\nmay not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle\nof which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which\nthe finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not\nlater than XXXX  days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be\nmade in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge. 15 U.S. Code  1638 -\nTransactions other than under an open end credit plan a) Required disclosures by creditor\nFor each consumer credit transaction other than under an open end credit plan, the creditor\nshall disclose each of the following items, to the extent applicable: (1) The identity of the\ncreditor required to make disclosure. (2) (A) The amount financed, using that term, which\nshall be the amount of credit of which the consumer has actual use. This amount shall be\ncomputed as follows, but the computations need not be disclosed and shall not be\ndisclosed with the disclosures conspicuously segregated in accordance with subsection (b)\n(1): (i) take the principal amount of the loan or the cash price less downpayment and trade-\nin; (ii) add any charges which are not part of the finance charge or of the principal amount\nof the loan and which are financed by the consumer, including the cost of any items\nexcluded from the finance charge pursuant to section 1605 of this title; and (iii) subtract any\ncharges which are part of the finance charge but which will be paid by the consumer before\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nor at the time of the consummation of the transaction, or have been withheld from the\nproceeds of the credit. (B) In conjunction with the disclosure of the amount financed, a\ncreditor shall provide a statement of the consumers right to obtain, upon a written request,\na written itemization of the amount financed. The statement shall include spaces for a yes\nand no indication to be initialed by the consumer to indicate whether the consumer wants\na written itemization of the amount financed. Upon receiving an affirmative indication, the\ncreditor shall provide, at the time other disclosures are required to be furnished, a written\nitemization of the amount financed. For the purposes of this subparagraph, itemization of\nthe amount financed means a disclosure of the following items, to the extent applicable: (i)\nthe amount that is or will be paid directly to the consumer; (ii) the amount that is or will be\ncredited to the consumers account to discharge obligations owed to the creditor; (iii) each\namount that is or will be paid to third persons by the creditor on the consumers behalf,\ntogether with an identification of or reference to the third person; and (iv) the total amount\nof any charges described in the preceding subparagraph (A)(iii). XXXX The finance charge,\nnot itemized, using that term. XXXX The finance charge expressed as an annual percentage\nrate, using that term. This shall not be required if the amount financed does not exceed $XXXX  and the finance charge does not exceed XXXX, or if the amount financed exceeds $XXXX  and the\nfinance charge does not exceed XXXXXXXX XXXX) The sum of the amount financed and the finance\ncharge, which shall be termed the total of payments. XXXX) The number, amount, and due\ndates or period of payments scheduled to repay the total of payments. XXXX XXXX XXXX, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  TO THE UNITED STATES COURT\nOF APPEALS FOR THE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Argued XXXX XXXX XXXX-Decided XXXX XXXX XXXX Respondents, five Arizona mothers whose children are eligible for state child\nsupport services under Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, filed this 42 U. S. C.  1983 suit\nagainst petitioner, the director of the state child support agency, claiming, among other\nthings, that they properly applied for child support services; that, despite their good faith\nefforts to cooperate, the agency never took adequate steps to obtain child support\npayments for them; that these omissions were largely attributable to staff shortages and\nother structural defects in the State's program; and that these systemic failures violated their\nindividual rights under Title XXXX  to have all mandated services delivered in substantial\ncompliance with the title and its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief,\nincluding a declaratory judgment that the Arizona program's operation violates TitlXXXX XXXX XXXX\nprovisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a  1983 action, and an\ninjunction requiring the director to achieve substantial compliance with Title IV-D\nthroughout all programmatic operations. The District Court granted summary judgment for\npetitioner, but the XXXX XXXX  reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous\nprovisions of the complex XXXX XXXX program or the many rights those provisions might\nhave created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to\nhave the State achieve \"substantial compliance\" with XXXX XXXX. It also disagreed with the\nDistrict Court's conclusion that Congress had foreclosed private XXXX XXXX enforcement\nactions by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to audit and\ncut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with XXXX XXXX\nrequirements Held: XXXX XXXX does not give individuals a federal right to force a state\nagency to substantially comply with XXXX XXXX XXXX  (a) A plaintiff seeking  XXXX  redress must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely of federal lawXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 493 U. S. 103, 106. XXXX  principal factors determine whether a\nstatutory provision creates a privately enforceable right: XXXX whether the plaintiff is an\nintended beneficiary of the statute; (XXXX  whether the plaintiff's asserted interests are not so\nvague and amor- XXXX  Syllabus phous as to be beyond the competence of the judiciary to\nenforce; and (3) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the State. SeeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 496 U. S. 498, 509. Even if a plaintiff demonstrates such a\nright, however, there is only a rebuttable presumption that it is enforceable under  XXXX.\nDismissal is proper if Congress specifically foreclosed a  XXXX  remedy, XXXX XXXX XXXX,\n468 U. S. 992, 1005, XXXX XXXX XXXX, either expressly, by forbidding recourse to  XXXX  in the\nstatute itself, or impliedly, by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is\nincompatible with individual  XXXX  enforcement, XXXX XXXX XXXX, 512 U. S. 107, 133. XXXX XXXX  (b) Respondents have not established that XXXX XXXX gives them individually\nenforceable federal rights. In prior cases, the Court has been able to determine whether or\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nnot a statute created such rights because the plaintiffs articulated, and lower courts\nevaluated, welldefined claims. See, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 479 U. S. 418, 430. Here, respondents have not identified with particularity the\nrights they claim, and the XXXX XXXX has not engaged in the requisite methodical inquiry.\nThat court erred in apparently holding that individuals have an enforceable right to\n\"substantial compliance\" with XXXX XXXX in all respects. The statutory \"substantial\ncompliance\" requirement, see, e. g., 42 U. S. C.  609(a)(8) (1994 ed., Supp. II), does not give\nrise to individual rights; it was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial\nparents, but is simply a yardstick for the Secretary to measure the systemwide performance\nof a State's XXXX XXXX  program, allowing her to increase the frequency of audits and reduce\nthe State's federal grant upon a finding of substantial noncompliance. The Court of Appeals\nalso erred in taking a blanket approach to determining whether XXXX XXXX creates rights: It is\nreadily apparent that many of the provisions of that multifaceted statutory scheme,\nincluding its \"substantial compliance\" standard and data processing, staffing, and\norganizational requirements, do not fit any of the traditional criteria for identifying statutory\nrights. Although this Court does not foreclose the possibility that some XXXX XXXX  provisions\ngive rise to individual rights, the XXXX XXXX  did not separate out the particular rights it\nbelieved arise from the statutory scheme, the complaint is less than clear in this regard, and\nit is not certain whether respondents sought any relief more specific than a declaration that\ntheir \"rights\" were being violated and an injunction forcing petitioner to \"substantially\ncomply\" with all of XXXX XXXX provisions. This defect is best addressed by sending the case\nback for the District Court to construe the complaint in the XXXX  instance, in order to\ndetermine exactly what rights, considered in their most concrete, specific form, respondents\nare asserting. Only by manageably breaking down the 42 U.S. Code  1983 - Civil action for\ndeprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,\ncustom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to\nbe subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof\nto the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and\nlaws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper\nproceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act\nor omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted\nunless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the\npurposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of\nColumbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Credit card Code\n15 U.S. Code  1692k - Civil liability Amount of damages Except as otherwise provided\nby this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter\nwith respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of (1) any\nactual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; (2) (A) in the case of any\naction by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding\n$XXXX; or (B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could\nbe recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all\nother class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the\nlesser of $XXXX  or XXXX  per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and (3) in the case\nof any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together\nwith a reasonable attorneys fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that\nan action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the\ncourt may award to the defendant attorneys fees reasonable in relation to the work\nexpended and costs. (b) Factors considered by court In determining the amount of liability\nin any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors\n(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of\nnoncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to\nwhich such noncompliance was intentional; or (2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)\n(B), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of\nsuch noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely\naffected, and the extent to which the debt collectors noncompliance was intentional. (c)\nIntent A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if\nthe debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not\nintentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of\nprocedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error. (d) Jurisdiction An action to\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nenforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United\nStates district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of\ncompetent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs. (e)\nAdvisory opinions of Bureau No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to\nany act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Bureau,\nnotwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended,\nrescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason. 15 U.S.\nCode  1642 - Issuance of credit cards No credit card shall be issued except in response to\na request or application therefor. This prohibition does not apply to the issuance of a credit\ncard in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card. 15 U.S.C 1692g Validation\nof debts (a) Notice of debt; contents Within XXXX  days after the initial communication with a\nconsumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the\nfollowing information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid\nthe debt, send the consumer a written notice containing (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the\nname of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer,\nwithin thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion\nthereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the\nconsumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or\nany portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a\ncopy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will\nbe mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the\nconsumers written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the\nconsumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current\ncreditor. (b) Disputed debts If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the\nthirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is\ndisputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the\ndebt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the\ndebt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and\naddress of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and\naddress of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection\nactivities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue\nduring the XXXX-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the\ndebt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the\nconsumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities\nand communication during the XXXX-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with\nthe disclosure of the consumers right to dispute the debt or request the name and address\nof the original creditor. (c) Admission of liability The failure of a consumer to dispute the\nvalidity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of\nliability by the consumer. (d) Legal pleadings A communication in the form of a formal\npleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of\nsubsection (a). (e) Notice provisions The sending or delivery of any form or notice which\ndoes not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly required by XXXX  XXXX, title V of\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.], or any provision of Federal or State law\nrelating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any\nsuch provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with\ndebt collection for purposes of this section. 15 U.S. Code  1681q - Obtaining information\nunder false pretenses U.S. Code Notes prev | next Any person who knowingly and willfully\nobtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false\npretenses shall be fined under XXXX XXXX imprisoned for not more than XXXX  years, or both. To\nwho it may concern , After viewing a copy of my credit report, I noticed a collection account\nplaced on my credit report from you in XXXX  I am requesting that you allow me to validate\nthe alleged debt. I am unaware of any outstanding medical bills that I possess, and I am\nseeking the name and hospital/medical provider to which I owe the debt and a detailed\nbreakdown of the fees that I owe. Additionally, I am allowed under the Heath insurance\nPortability and Accountability Act (HIPAA] to protect my privacy and medical records from\nthird parties. I did not give permission to any of my current or prior medical providers to\nrelease any of my medical information to a third party. I am aware that the HIPAA does\nallows the release of limited information about me but anything more is to only be revealed\nwith the patient's authorization. Therefore, my request is twofold-validation of debt and\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX  HIPAA authorization.  Please provide breakdown of fees including any collection costs and\nmedical charges.  Provide a copy of my signature with the provider of service to release my\nmedical information to you.Cease any credit bureau reporting until the debt has been\nvalidated by me, Please send this information to my address listed above and accept this\nletter, sent certified mail, as my formal debt validation request, which I am allowed under the\nFDCPA. Please note that withholding the information you received from any medical\nprovider in an attempt to be HIPAA compliant can be a violation of the FDCPA because you\nwill be deceiving me after my written request. I request full documentation of what you\nreceived from the provider of service in connection with this alleged debt. Additionally, any\nreporting of this debt to the credit bureaus prior to allowing me to validate it is a violation of\nthe Fair Credit Reporting Act, which can allow me to seek damages from a collection\nagency. I will await your reply with above requested proof. Upon receiving it, I will\ncorrespond back by certified mail.\nI reserved all my rights to amend this Contract the Finance Manager Requested that I give it to the Dealership I have advised the Seller  told the buyer that I XXXX XXXX XXXX Private Individual Banker is a Beneficiary Of my trust and this is a Purchase for my trust XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX request that they  will accept my TENDER OF PAYMENT for settlement of this account to be (balance to .00) on the books and to file IRS FORMS 1099s to properly balance the United States Treasury Debt I have signed this contract and I have not give my rights to amended this contract on Date:XXXX signed by the Beneficiary XXXX XXXX Private Individual Banker ESTATE /TRUST Exempt Form Levy I reserve all my rights WITHOUT RECOURSE UCC1-308 I will be using my credit for this transaction and not paying in cash and I have send my letter to the Finance Manager by email he requested they I send a tender of payment to retrieve my property I need to have cash or a check and which he have received and told me to send it to bank and it been over XXXX  and I have the right to receive my property and use my credit for this transaction and dont have to use cash or and any other payment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  We the people have the right to use credit or a tender of payment and if its not accepted by the party or Leander or vendor it is discharged by law all debt is obligation to the United States. Your company didnt disclose any truth in lending or cannot show me where I can send it to panties with cash, and I was trying to pay with my internal credit and not actual funds this is my GOD Giving rights and by law show me where it stated in law where I cant use my credit for this transaction or cant use negotiable instruments. I do not consent to your contract for FCRAAs a federal protected consumer, I am now opting out of any and all authorization I the consumer may have given you written unwritten, verbal and nonverbal 15 USC 1602. And I would like conversation for all the violations.\n16 CFR  313.1 - Purpose and scope. \n\tCFR \n\tTable of Popular Names\nprev | next\n XXXX  Purpose and scope.\n(a) Purpose. This part governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph (b) of this section. This part: \n(1) Requires a financial institution in specified circumstances to provide notice to  customers about its privacy policies and practices; \n(2) Describes the conditions under which a financial institution may disclose  nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties; and \n(3) Provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure, subject to the exceptions in XXXX XXXX, and 313.15. \n(b) Scope. This part applies only to nonpublic personal information about individuals who obtain financial products or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes from the institutions listed below. This part does not apply to information about companies or about individuals who obtain financial products or services for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. This part applies to those financial institutions over which the Federal Trade Commission(Commission) has rulemaking authority pursuant to section 504(a)(1)(C) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. An entity is a financial institution if its business is engaging in an activity that is financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k), which incorporates activities enumerated by the Federal Reserve Board in 12 CFR 225.28 and 225.86. The financial institutions subject to the Commission's rulemaking authority are any persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5519 that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. They are referred to in this part as You. Excluded from the coverage of this part are motor vehicle dealers described in 12 U.S.C. 5519(b) that directly extend to consumers retail credit or retail leases involving motor vehicles in which the contract governing such extension of retail credit or retail leases is not routinely assigned to an unaffiliated third party finance or leasing source.\n[65 FR 33677, XXXX XXXX XXXX  as amended at 86 FR 70025, XXXX XXXX XXXX\n16 CFR  433.2 - Preservation of consumers' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices. \n\tCFR \n\tTable of Popular Names\nprev | next\n XXXX  Preservation of consumers' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive  act or practice within the meaning of section XXXX of that  Act for a  seller, directly or indirectly, to:\n(a) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type:\nNOTICE\nANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\nor,\n(b) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan (as  purchase money loan is defined herein), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such  purchase money loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type:\nNOTICE\nANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-06T18:03:26.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"68502","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10717011","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-06T17:25:23.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code Notes prev | next Any person who knowingly and willfully\nobtains information on a consumer from a consumer <em>reporting</em> agency under false\npretenses shall be fined under XXXX XXXX imprisoned for not more than XXXX  years, or both. To\nwho it may concern , After viewing a copy of my credit <em>report</em>, I noticed a collection account\nplaced on my credit <em>report</em> from you in XXXX  I am requesting that you allow me to validate\nthe <em>alleged</em> debt."],"product":["Credit <em>reporting</em> or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of your <em>report</em>"],"sub_product":["Credit <em>reporting</em>"],"sub_issue":["<em>Reporting</em> company used your <em>report</em> improperly"]},"sort":[6.022111,"10717011"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":8,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":8}]}},"product":{"doc_count":8,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":8,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company communicating payment assistance or payment extension options","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":8,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":8}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":8,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":6},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":8,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":8}]}},"company":{"doc_count":8,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"GUARANTEED RATE INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":8,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":8,"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":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":8,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}