{"took":294,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":14,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9421786","_score":11.359129,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in regards to the charge made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX on XX/XX/year> for their claim if damages that resulted due ti mud left on the car. The charge on XX/XX/year> was for a total amount of : XXXX, of that amount XXXX was credited back to my account following a CFPB claim against American Express because of their poor handling of the original dispute. I am continuing my complaint and dispute for the remainder XXXX. The reason I am disputing this charge is XXXX : I do not believe nor do I have documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that mud left on the XXXX from a XXXX XXXX  would result in such damage. XXXX : per the contract signed it does say that failure to wash the XXXX would result in a XXXX $ fee, of which the XXXX $ security deposit would have sufficiently covered. XXXX : as it is a rental, and as the rental agency would suspect patrons would not be familiar with XXXX XXXXXXXX, and its high iron contents per XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claim, there is nothing in the rental agreement nor in any communication from the employees of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  that indicates the resulting damage of the mud with exception to a XXXX $ charge. It is highly unlikely that XXXX would have resulted in such damage. XXXX : after the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX picked up the XXXX there was XXXX communication from them until a charge 6 days later for XXXX was made at that time they still did not notify me ( I noticed on my own ) and failed to respond to questions regarding the charge until an email was sent which indicated the charge along with the claim of mud damage, accompanied by blurry images of the XXXX, and XXXX screen shots of the cost is supplies to fix the Claimed damages. At that time I called and emailed to inquire about more information and only received XXXX email stating to make an insurance claim. [ although an insurance claim with American Express was made, it was denied because XXXX : American Express stated that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  is not a car rental company despite the fact that per their website they state they are, and XXXX : they said it is not covered because we took the XXXX off XXXX, however we did not : we were driving on per XXXX XXXX owner of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : state maintained roads which is where we were directed to XXXX although those roads were mostly dirt roads. ]. XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX per the request of not only myself, my personal insurance company ( which was also denied because I do not have rental car coverage which is why Amex was used for their coverage ) and Amex assurance team, and the dispute team did not provide a detailed repair estimate from a repair shop detailing the damage and repairs they were claiming. \nXXXX : the rental agreement time frame was from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the following day. We informed XXXX XXXX that we were done with XXXX and parked for him to pick up around XXXX pm he said he would still pick it up in the am. We noticed that the XXXX wasnt picked up until late in the afternoon one of the images that was sent as evidence of damage was at an outdoor car wash it was night time in the image, however we do not know when/ what day this was taken. At any rate If upon picking up the XXXX and seeing mud was clearly on it was such a cause for concern because of the amount of damage done- why did hours go by with out cleaning the XXXX how do we know that from the time we left the XXXX  at XXXX the previous day to when ever that picture was taken the damage was not done then, when all we have to go on is XXXX  screen shots of cost of supplies, a blurry image, and their word. Finally, XXXX : their word, it is clear to me that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX is running an unethical operation as evidence by XXXX : failure to respond to the XXXX  claim that I made, resulting in losing their XXXX and a down grade to an F rating. XXXX : XXXX  reviews from other patrons claiming fraudulent charges. XXXX : multiple XXXX reviews claiming fraudulent charges, and several reviews reporting that charges were made to their cc for thousands of dollars, resulting in disputes with their cc companys ( some of which list they uses an American Express card ) and charges made a full year after their rental, or for damages without evidence, all reviews claimed they have not received any communication response from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nAll of my reasons listed above which I have wrote and verbalized to American Express multiple times over the course of the last year and a half since the original charge should have initiated some sort of investigation, however if that investigation was initiated American Express dispute team continues to fail to inform me of such and as a result originally closed my case with out explanation, and due to the length of time it went on I was not able to re- open it or speak to anyone in the dispute team regarding this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-03T12:22:35.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"48042","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9421786","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2024-07-03T12:07:50.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["American Express multiple times over the course of the last year and a half since the original charge should have initiated some sort of investigation, however if that investigation was initiated American Express dispute team continues to <em>fail</em> to <em>inform</em> me of such and as a <em>result</em> <em>originally</em> <em>closed</em> my <em>case</em> with out explanation, and due to the length of time it went on I was not able to re- open it or speak to anyone in the dispute team regarding this matter."]},"sort":[11.359129,"9421786"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7096800","_score":9.352957,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I had a Chime Credit Builder Account as well as a the normal/basic Chime Checking Account, I regularly had funds deposited XX/XX/XXXX student loans were direct deposited ( {$1900.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX My tax check was direct deposited into my checking account ( {$6400.00} ) and immediately transferred to my credit builder account. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX received email saying : Hi XXXX, We have adjusted your max SpotMe limit to {$5.00}. This means you can set a SpotMe limit between {$0.00} to {$5.00} in the Chime app. \nYour max SpotMe limit is determined based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to your account activity and history. Please note that Chime Member Services is not able to adjust SpotMe limits. \nSincerely, The Chime Team I thought this was odd, especially given the fact i had repeatedly paid any SpotMe overdrafts back almost instantaneously after receiving them XX/XX/XXXX I contacted chime support to file 2 different disputes. The first dispute was over my normal checking account being charged several duplicate charges by XXXX XXXX. The second dispute was for a purchase made using my credit builder account. It was a XXXX order from XXXX XXXX. I was disputing this purchase because upon checking the order once it had been delivered, it was missing a lot of the items we had ordered and the food that we did actually receive was incorrect. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX received email from Chime saying We noticed a change in your direct deposits. Check out some of the ways we can support you. \n\nAlthough very shortly before this email was when my tax check had been deposited into the account. Again thought this email seemed a bit odd but still I didnt give it too much thought XX/XX/XXXX Contacted Chime Support to dispute an XXXX XXXX made using my credit builder. I had purchased a new laptop for school ( {$750.00} ). The laptop was originally supposed to arrive by Sunday XX/XX/XXXX but was not delivered. This delay put me behind in a few of my courses for school. When viewing the order page on XXXX there was a prompt that stated I could request a refund if the item hadnt been delivered by Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX. When it didnt arrive that Tuesday, I contacted XXXX customer service to discuss my options, I couldnt afford to fall further behind in my classes waiting for the laptop when I could just request the refund like the order details page had said and either order one that could arrive sooner or go purchase one in an actual store that way Id have it that same day. Upon contacting XXXX customer service reps on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX to discuss the possibility of a refund, each time I was directed to contact the carrier over still not receiving the laptop, and the blatantly obvious attempt to avoid having to refund my money. When it became apparent that the reps were either unwilling or unable to provide help further than contact the carrier, I contacted Chime Support to dispute the purchase through my card issuer. ( As of XX/XX/XXXX the laptop still hasnt arrived, when using XXXX tracking it says package may be lost ) XX/XX/XXXX Sent Chime support screenshots via email of the interactions between myself and XXXX customer support along with the orders page that stated that I could request a refund had I not received the laptop by Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX received a couple different emails from Chime that read as follows : Hi XXXX, Were sorry to share the news that we have decided to close your Chime Credit Builder Visa Credit Card Account and Chime Credit Builder Secured Account , effective immediately. \nYour account was closed for the following reason ( s ) : Account does not comply with internal policies and/or the member agreement. \nOnce your secured account is closed, a check for any remaining balance will be mailed to you within thirty ( 30 ) days to the address we have on file for you. \n___ _ _______ ___ ___ __ ___________, __ _____ If this is not your current address, please notify us in writing at XXXX within 5 days of receiving this notification to make any necessary updates. \nIf youd like to get in touch with Chime Member Services about this decision, please email XXXX. \nSincerely, The Chime Team And Hi XXXX, Following a recent review of your Chime Checking Account, we regret to inform you that we have made the decision to end our relationship with you at this time. Your Chime Checking Account will be closed on XX/XX/XXXX. \nIf you have a Chime Savings Account, per the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, your Savings Account will also be closed. \nIf you have ACH Debits or recurring debit card payments, please notify the originators immediately to avoid disruption with your future payments. ACH debits and recurring debit card payments may be rejected after XX/XX/XXXX, however we still encourage you to redirect your ongoing direct deposits and bank transfers to avoid any delay in receiving your funds. \nSincerely, The Chime Team I sent an email in response to these expressing that I was confused as to why this would happen and questioned the possibility that there had been a mistake made resulting in the closure of my account. \n\nTheir response was as follows : Hi XXXX, Thanks for reaching out to Chime Member Services. I am sorry your Chime account was closed. \nWe have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nPlease let me know if I can assist you with anything else. \nThanks, XXXX | Chime Member Services I sent another email to inform them I had in fact read through the aforementioned sections and was struggling to find anything that would even remotely pertain to my account closure, They responded with : Hi XXXX, Thank you for contacting Chime Member Services. I hope you and your family are well, and safe upon receipt of my email. \nI apologize for the inconvenience caused to you Chime has determined that your account is not compliant with its internal policies and the member agreement executed at enrollment. So, that's why your account has been closed. If there is any account balance due to you, a check will be mailed to the address on file within 30 days. Also, I regret to inform you that this account can not be re-opened. \nPlease feel free to reply here if any other questions or concerns come up. I want to make sure we get everything taken care of. \nThanks, XXXX XXXX Chime Member Services At this point I proceeded to ask for the specific information that they had used in order to determine that my account was not compliant XX/XX/XXXX received a response to my previous email that was extremely similar to their previous email response : Hi XXXX, This is XXXX XXXX a live representative at Chime Member Services. I understand that you are concerned about your Chime account status. No worries, I will definitely look into it for you. \nPlease be informed that Chime has determined that your account is not compliant with its internal policies and the member agreement executed at enrollment. For security reasons, Chime is unable to disclose any more information about the closure of your account. \nFor full details, please refer to section C9 ( Account Holds, Suspensions, Restrictions, and Closures ) of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you would like to appeal this decision, please contact us at XXXX. Thanks and I appreciate your patience and understanding on this matter. \nSincerely, XXXX | Chime Member Services XX/XX/XXXX Received email from XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding still needing a payment for the product if I decided to continue with my dispute of the transaction. They were requesting more information as to why I had filed the dispute ( basically confirming whether a refund/chargeback would be warranted or not ), as well as passively-aggressively suggesting I contact XXXX Customer Service if ever another issue were to arise with any future orders. I responded informing them I had still not received the laptop so regardless of if it was due to them willingly refunding the money or a chargeback of the money enforced by the bank, I was entitled to my money back. I also informed them that I had initially attempted to resolve the issue with XXXX customer service team for 2 days before deciding to proceed with filing a dispute for the purchase through my bank. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I sent an email to XXXX requesting information on how to appeal the decision to close my account, they sent two different responses that read as follows : Hi XXXX, Welcome to Chime Member Services. I hope this message finds you well, and that you and your loved ones are safe and healthy. \nWe have determined that your account does not comply with the terms of the the Deposit Account Agreement. The account will be close on [ XX/XX/XXXX ]. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. \nFor more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nKind Regards, XXXX XXXX Chime Member Services And Hi XXXX, We have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nXXXX | Member Protection Team XX/XX/XXXX I sent Chime an email expressing the extreme confusion I had regarding the date that the account closure would be effective changing from effective immediately to XX/XX/XXXX. This especially raised concerns due to the fact that since the initial email ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that had stated the closure would be effective immediately, I hadnt been able to access to my account, billing statements, log into the app, etc AT ALL XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sent an email that read as follows : Hello, We received your email about the credit card dispute you filed on Order XXXX \nTo correct this problem, we have asked your card issuer to close the dispute in your favor. \nPlease allow 3 to 5 business days for the refund of XXXX USD to appear on your credit card account. \nWe are sorry for any inconvenience. If you need more information about the dispute or the credit card refund, please contact your card issuer. \nAccount Specialist XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX I emailed Chime informing them XXXX confirmed they would be honoring my dispute and requested further information on how they had planned to handle the matter moving forward XX/XX/XXXX Chime responded with the same generic email : Hi XXXX, Thanks for reaching out to Chime Member Services. I'm sorry to hear about the difficulty you're experiencing. \nWe have determined that your account does not comply with the terms of the Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. \nYou should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nFor more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nPlease feel free to reply here if any other questions or concerns come up. I want to make sure we get everything taken care of. \nXXXX | Chime Member Services XX/XX/XXXX Received Email from Chime in regards to my XXXX  dispute that read as follows : Account Number Ending In : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dispute Type : Credit - Goods/Services Not As Described Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$59.00} Dear XXXX XXXX, Thank you for notifying us of the billing error on your account. \nOur investigation team has reviewed your claim and concluded a billing error did occur. As a result, we have credited your account in the amount of {$59.00} along with any related charges, as applicable. \nWe apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. \nIf youd like to request the documentation we used to make the determination, please email us a XXXX Sincerely, Chime Disputes Team XX/XX/XXXX I email Chime asking if I should be expecting a check with the funds that had been credited to me following the XXXX dispute being substantiated Their response was as follows : Hi XXXX, Thank you for reaching out. \nWe have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nXXXX | Member Protection Team I sent an email then informing XXXX that the response he had sent had zero relevancy to, nor did it provide any further or clearer insight into a resolution for the question at hand. I was frustrated at this point due to a good portion of the previous emails I had received from Chime, pertaining to this matter, having stated the exact same information as the last, and having even been formatted almost identically to one another. I had/have not yet received a single email from Chime that directly addressed the questions I had/have been asking with 100 % transparency. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX receive email from Chime in regards to the dispute pertaining to duplicate charges from XXXX XXXX : RE : Account Number : XXXX Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Debit - Duplicate Charge Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$210.00} Hello XXXX XXXX, This letter is to inform you we have applied a provisional credit to your account on XXXX in the amount of {$210.00}. This temporary credit is being provided so that you will have full use of these funds while we complete our investigation. \nWe will complete our investigation as quickly as possible, but no later than XXXX. \nWe will communicate the results of our investigation to you by email within three business days of completion. If we deny your claim, we will reverse the provisional credit and debit the amount from your account. We will notify you if this occurs. \nThank you for being a valued Chime member. If you have any questions, please contact us by phone at XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX or by email at XXXX. \nSincerely, Chime Disputes Team I respond again voicing my concern about the possibility of my account being mistakenly closed Their response was as follows : Hi XXXX, Thank you for keeping in touch! \nI would like to confirm to you that the account was closed on XXXX. Please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nPlease let me know if you have any additional questions! Thank you for your patience and cooperation on this. \nXXXX | Chime Member Services. \n\nI receive a check for the dispute for multiple duplicate charges ( {$210.00} ) in the mail shortly after receiving the email. \n\nStill have yet to receive a check or an answer about the funds from the XXXX dispute that was resolved and credited ( {$59.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX Chime sends email saying : Account Number Ending In : XXXX Claim ID : XXXX  Dispute Type : Debit - Duplicate Charge Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$210.00} Hello XXXX XXXX, This letter is to inform you that we have made a final determination regarding the claim referenced above. \nBased on our investigation, we have concluded no error occurred. On XXXX, a provisional credit was posted to your account on a temporary basis until we completed our investigation. On XXXX, the provisional credit will be reversed and your account will be debited in the amount of {$210.00}. \nPlease ensure that there are sufficient funds in your account to cover the amount that will be debited, as well as any purchases or payments you plan to make. \nYou may request a copy of the documents we used in determining the final outcome of the investigation. If you would like to request copies of the documents, or have further questions, please contact us at XXXX. \nSincerely, Chime Disputes Team XX/XX/XXXX I reach out to XXXX customer support asking the status of the chargeback/refund they agreed to provide XXXX confirms XXXX completion of the refund in an email that reads : Hello, We received your email about order XXXX. We have researched this matter and confirmed that the dispute in question has been resolved between XXXX and your card issuer. \nPlease contact your card issuer for more information about reimbursement for this purchase. In the future, file an A-to-z Guarantee claim to resolve any issues related to XXXX XXXX purchases before contacting your card issuer. For more information, visit the page : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nWe can not help you further with this problem. \n-- - XXXX XXXX Account Specialist XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I email Chime to inform them XXXX has now confirmed that the dispute has been resolved and receive no reply XX/XX/XXXX I email again asking where the check is for the {$59.00} and now the {$750.00} as well ; still no response At which point I call customer service and they reassure me several times that they will send me tracking information for the checks via email directly after the call ends ; i never received any tracking info or any information in general like promised while speaking to customer service reps on the phone XX/XX/XXXX I email Chime stating I was told Id receive tracking info when I called but had yet to receive even a reply to the three previous emails I had sent and definitely hadnt received any information or tracking information for any check. \n\nChime Dispute Team responds saying : XXXX XXXX, I completely understand the inconvenience you are experiencing. We are working to resolve your case as quickly as possible. Based on the nature of your claim, we will complete the investigation no later than XX/XX/XXXX. We will notify you by email as soon as the investigation is completed. \nAlso, we're pleased to let you know Chime has added a new feature to the app which allows you to check your status dispute in real time. Navigate to your home screen and click on the View Disputes widget located towards the bottom of your screen under your spending/saving account information or click this link. \nThanks, XXXX | The Dispute Team Still providing no solid solutions or answers since I am still unable to access my account at all, so using the new feature isnt something that Id be able to do either. I mentioned XXXX had already confirmed that my card issuer and themselves had resolved the dispute. If it was resolved then wouldnt the investigation then be complete? I respond reminding them of my inability to access my account, to which they reply with the EXACT same email as the last XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I email asking where the money is again XX/XX/XXXX I email again for clarification on what else they would have to investigate if XXXX is saying that they had already resolved and returned this transaction, and express my frustrations with it seeming as if since they closed my account they were not prioritizing the situation as they would if i were technically still a customer I email XXXX again requesting information on how to appeal the decision to close my account for the second time XX/XX/XXXX Chime sends me an email saying : Account Number Ending In : XXXX  Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Credit - Non-Receipt of Goods or Services Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$750.00} Dear XXXX XXXX, Thank you for notifying us of the billing error on your account. \nOur investigation team has reviewed your claim and concluded a billing error did occur. As a result, we have credited your account in the amount of {$750.00} along with any related charges, as applicable. \nWe apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. \nIf youd like to request the documentation we used to make the determination, please email us a XXXX Sincerely, Chime Disputes Team I respond for clarification on how I will receive these funds Their response : Hi XXXX, Thank you for reaching out to Chime Member Services. I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. Rest assured that I am here to assist you with your concern. \nXXXX, I'm happy to inform you that, Your recent dispute of {$750.00} has been approved. \nThank you so much for giving us the opportunity to have you in our Chime family, anything else that you may need, remember that you will find me here for you XXXX! \nThanks, XXXX | Chime Member Services I respond asking again how i will be receiving these funds XX/XX/XXXX Receive email from Chime saying : Hi XXXX, Thank you for keeping in touch. Ive looked into your account details to find some answers. \nWe have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nThanks, XXXX | Member Protection Team XX/XX/XXXX I noticed while using the Klover app that it was still linked to both, the normal Chime checking account as well as the credit builder account. And that my credit builder account was showing a balance of {$810.00} so i emailed chime asking if that was accurate and again asking for some sort of insight on how and when Id be receiving these payments ; no response XX/XX/XXXX I email again asking how and when Id be receiving the money ; no response XX/XX/XXXX I email again vocalizing my ever thinning patience with the matter and asking about how and when yet again They respond : Hi XXXX, Thank you for reaching out. We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused. \nAfter a recent review of your account, weve found that it does not comply with the terms of the Deposit Account Agreement. Your account has been closed by Chime and is not eligible for a refund. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nWe regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Please let us know if we can assist you further or give us a call at XXXX. \nXXXX | Member Protection Team I email informing them I had received an email from Chime themselves stating that my dispute was approved and it wasnt a refund I was anticipating, it was money from a dispute that they had resolved with the other company and had received the money from already. Money that was rightfully mine. Money i was entitled to. \n\nNo response As of XX/XX/XXXX i have yet to receive a response or a check for the amount I am owed nor do I have any access to my account ( including but not limited to logging in, viewing any documents/bank statements/billing statements, etc )","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-09T16:09:44.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"473XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7096800","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2023-06-09T15:55:39.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Kind Regards, XXXX XXXX Chime Member Services And Hi XXXX, We have determined that your account <em>failed</em> to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve <em>closed</em> your account as a <em>result</em>. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement."],"sub_issue":["Funds not received from <em>closed</em> account"]},"sort":[9.352957,"7096800"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12388263","_score":7.513048,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally request the discharge of my student loan due to significant documentation deficiencies that have led to financial hardship and emotional distress. \n\nUnder the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), I am entitled to complete and accurate documentation regarding my loan. However, since XXXX took over my loan in XXXX, I have faced considerable confusion and lack of clarity about my loan status, particularly regarding the transition from XXXX to XXXX and the subsequent claims made by XXXX. The paperwork provided lacks crucial details, including a lender number tied to a mortgage company in Florida and verifiable loan information. \n\nMoreover, the shutdown of XXXX due to poor loan servicing practices and my unsuccessful attempts to obtain documentation over the past XXXX years only exacerbate my concerns regarding the validity of my loan. My records show no evidence of payments made from XXXX to XXXX, despite having utilized forbearances and deferments. \n\n# # # Legal Framework and Supporting Case Law 1. **Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule** : Under **34 C.F.R. 685.206**, borrowers are protected when misled by their educational institutions or when there are violations of applicable laws. This rule allows borrowers like myself to seek a discharge of student loans for inadequate documentation or servicer non-compliance with federal regulations. \n\n2. **Colorado Higher Education Statute ( C.R.S. 23-3.1-2003 ) ** : This statute delineates the responsibilities of higher education institutions and loan servicers to maintain precise and verifiable records. It mandates that loan servicers ensure documentation is up-to-date and readily accessible to borrowers. Failure to follow this statute can provide grounds for loan discharge.\n\n3. **Senate Bill 19-002** : Recently enacted legislation aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process, this bill clarifies that borrowers are entitled to discharge if adequate documentation has not been maintained or provided upon request.\n\nSupporting case law further emphasizes the necessity for clear documentation. For example, in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) **, the court affirmed the need for transparency in loan servicing. \n\nGiven the ongoing emotional and financial burden caused by these issues, coupled with the absence of proper documentation, I respectfully request the immediate discharge of my loan and compensation for the distress experienced. \n\nAs a borrower of federal student loans, I am entitled to certain fundamental rights under federal law, including the right to receive complete, accurate documentation related to my loan. Specifically, under the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), borrowers are granted significant protections that ensure proper loan servicing and access to accurate information regarding the terms and conditions of their loans. The lack of original documents hampers my ability to understand the specifics of my loan obligations and hinders my rights as a borrower. \n\nTo provide further context, it is important to note that XXXX allegedly took over my loan in XXXX, while XXXX changed its name to XXXX in XXXX and subsequently closed in XXXX. During the period from XXXX to XXXX, I was making payments to XXXX, yet XXXX claims they had my loan and placed their name on the records with XXXX from XXXX before XXXX was involved. Additionally, the paperwork I received from XXXX in XXXX was lacking crucial information, including a lender number associated with a mortgage company based in Florida. There was no specific connection provided to validate my loan, and the consolidating loan information was not clearly included. \n\nFurthermore, there was a lawsuit that led to the shutdown of XXXX ( formerly known as XXXXXXXX  ) due to poor handling of loans. Despite my attempts to gather appropriate documentation over the past five years, I have not received adequate or legitimate information regarding my loan payments from XXXX to XXXX. My records do not reflect any evidence of payments, which is deeply concerning, especially since my loan was supposed to have a cap of 3 %. I also took out several forbearances and deferments, maximizing those options, but have received no clarity on my loan status or terms. \n\nThe absence of proper documentation raises serious concerns regarding the validity of this loan, leaving me feeling deceived and trapped. The stress and confusion that this lack of clarity has generated are profoundly alarming and unacceptable. As a result, I believe that I am entitled to not only the discharge of this loan but also compensation for the unnecessary distress it has caused me. \n\n# # # Supporting Case Law Numerous court cases underscore the need for transparency and proper documentation in the loan servicing process : XXXX. *XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ** : This case affirmed the need for accurate documentation in loan servicing and the obligation of servicers to provide clear records to borrowers. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court ruled that borrowers have the right to challenge their loans when they do not receive adequate documentation from the servicer. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ** : The court determined borrowers could seek loan discharges if the servicer failed to provide necessary documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : This case supported borrowers ' rights to contest their obligations when denied access to essential loan documents. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The ruling affirmed that borrowers are entitled to rely on their servicers to produce required documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court highlighted that servicers must ensure that their records accurately reflect loan terms. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX* : Additionally, in the recent class-action lawsuit against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) regarding improper documentation and loan servicing practices, it was alleged that borrowers were misled about their repayment obligations. The court found substantial evidence indicating that XXXX failed to comply with federal documentation requirements, similar to the issues I have faced. This case highlights the potential for borrowers like myself to claim discharge on the grounds that servicers compromised our rights through their inadequate practices. \n\n# # # Personal Impact The experience of navigating this loan has been overwhelming and distressing due to the lack of accurate information. I have made multiple requests for documentation regarding my loan, including payment history, loan terms, and borrower rights, but have not received satisfactory responses. This gap in responsibility has resulted in confusion regarding my repayment obligations and has adversely affected my financial well-being. \n\nAs a borrower of federal student loans, I am entitled to certain fundamental rights under federal law, including the right to receive complete, accurate documentation related to my loan. Specifically, under the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), borrowers are granted significant protections that ensure proper loan servicing and access to accurate information regarding the terms and conditions of their loans. The lack of original documents hampers my ability to understand the specifics of my loan obligations and hinders my rights as a borrower. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ** : This case established that educational institutions could be held responsible for misleading information that affects students ' financial decisions. The principle emphasizes that borrowers are entitled to accurate representations regarding their loans. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ** : While originally about political representation, the ruling emphasized the principle of accountability in compliance with established laws, which can be applied to loan servicers who fail to meet federal and state regulations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ** : This bankruptcy case underscores the need for loan servicers to adhere to disclosure requirements and emphasizes borrowers rights if they are misled or inadequately informed. \n\nTo provide further context, it is important to note that XXXX allegedly took over my loan in XXXX, while XXXX changed its name to XXXX in XXXX and subsequently closed in XXXX. During the period from XXXX to XXXX, I was making payments to XXXX, yet XXXX claims they had my loan and placed their name on the records with XXXX from XXXX before XXXX was involved. Additionally, the paperwork I received from XXXX in XXXX was lacking crucial information, including a lender number associated with a mortgage company based in Florida. There was no specific connection provided to validate my loan, and the consolidating loan information was not clearly included. \n\nFurthermore, there was a lawsuit that led to the shutdown of XXXX ( formerly known as XXXX XXXX due to poor handling of loans. Despite my attempts to gather appropriate documentation over the past XXXX years, I have not received adequate or legitimate information regarding my loan payments from XXXX to XXXX. My records do not reflect any evidence of payments, which is deeply concerning, especially since my loan was supposed to have a cap of 3 %. I also took out several forbearances and deferments, maximizing those options, but have received no clarity on my loan status or terms. \n\ni would like to reference the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule, codified under 34 C.F.R. 685.206, which provides critical protections for borrowers misled by their educational institutions or in cases of violations of applicable laws. This federal rule enables borrowers like myself to seek discharge of their loans when documentation is lacking or when servicers fail to comply with federal regulations. The case of *XXXX XXXX  U.S. Department of Education , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ** further illustrates the impact of ineffective loan servicing on borrowers, reinforcing the need for accountability in such situations. \nMoreover, I would like to draw your attention to the recent Senate Bill 19-002, designed to enhance transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process. This legislation emphasizes that borrowers are entitled to loan discharge in cases where adequate documentation has not been maintained or provided upon request. This concept is further supported by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) **, which highlighted the significance of maintaining accurate records in the servicing of loans. \n\nThe Colorado Higher Education Statute ( C.R.S. 23-3.1-2003 ) delineates the responsibilities of both higher education institutions and loan servicers in maintaining accurate and verifiable records. This statute mandates that loan servicers ensure that all documentation related to loans is up-to-date and readily accessible to borrowers upon request. \n\nIn addition, the Federal Student Aid ( FSA ) guidelines explicitly require loan servicers to maintain and provide adequate documentation to validate loans. The principles established in **Auer v. Robbins , 51XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ** stress the importance of transparency and compliance with regulatory requirements in protecting borrower rights. \n\nFurthermore, the case oXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ** emphasizes that loan servicers must adhere to disclosure requirements. Failing to do so can constitute grounds for loan discharge, as every borrower has the right to clear and accurate information concerning their loans. \n\nGiven the above circumstances, including the serious implications of lacking the required documentation as noted in both case law and legislation, I kindly request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. Taking this action will not only adhere to regulatory requirements but also uphold my rights as a borrower as exemplified by **In re : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) **, which underscores the necessity for loan servicers to comply with documentation mandates The absence of proper documentation raises serious concerns regarding the validity of this loan, leaving me feeling deceived and trapped. The stress and confusion that this lack of clarity has generated are profoundly alarming and unacceptable. As a result, I believe that I am entitled to not only the discharge of this loan but also compensation for the unnecessary distress it has caused me. \n\nXXXX relevant case is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) **, which held that students have rights to accurate and accessible information related to their loans, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in safeguarding borrower interests. \n\nAdditionally, in XXXX XXXX XXXX Dept. of EducXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the court underscored the importance of maintaining accurate records for the integrity of the loan servicing process. The ruling underlined that any failure to provide appropriate documentation could lead to adverse implications for the borrower. \n\nGiven these precedents and the serious implications of lacking the required documentation, I respectfully request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. Not only will this action adhere to regulatory requirements, but it will also uphold my rights as a borrower, reinforcing the accountability highlighted in these significant cases. \nI urge you to consider the gravity of this situation. The ongoing uncertainty and the impact on my financial health make it imperative that this matter be resolved without further delay. Failure to address these serious concerns may compel me to pursue legal action to protect my rights and seek appropriate damages for the harm I have experienced.\n\nIn addition to the federal protections I've mentioned, Colorado state law provides several additional regulations that underscore my position. The Colorado Student Loan Servicer Licensing Act ( C.R.S. 12-60-1001 et seq. ) establishes rigorous standards for student loan servicers operating within the state. This law requires servicers, including XXXX and its predecessors, to maintain accurate records and provide clear and comprehensive information to borrowers. Failure to meet these obligations may constitute a violation of this Act. \n\nAnother crucial case is *XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the court ruled that improper loan servicing practices, including inadequate record maintenance, can result in significant adverse outcomes for borrowers, reinforcing the need for accountability in loan management. \n\nIn light of these cases, which collectively emphasize the importance of accurate documentation and borrower protection, I kindly request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. This action will not only comply with regulatory requirements but also uphold the rights established through binding legal precedent that underscores the necessity for transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ** : In this case, the court emphasized that the failure of loan servicers to maintain proper documentation can undermine the borrower 's rights, allowing for potential discharge of the loan in light of inadequate servicing practices. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court ruled that borrowers deserve transparency in their loan terms and should be able to access accurate documentation. Lack of such documentation can lead to a presumption against the loan servicer regarding the validity of the debt. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX. U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : Here, the court acknowledged that borrowers may seek remedies when loan servicers fail to provide adequate and timely information about their loans, emphasizing the borrowers right to clarity and transparency. \n\nTo further reinforce my claim, I would like to include the following relevant case law : XXXX XXXX XXXX  U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ** : The court emphasized the importance of transparency in loan servicing, stating that a lack of proper documentation can constitute grounds for borrowers to seek relief under federal regulations. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ** : This case highlighted the responsibilities of loan servicers to provide accurate and current documentation to borrowers, reinforcing the idea that failure to do so could result in significant legal repercussions. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX. U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court ruled in favor of the borrower based on inadequate documentation. This ruling demonstrated that borrowers are entitled to full disclosure and that the absence of documentation undermines the credibility of the loan. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : This case reinforced the necessity of proper documentation for effective loan servicing, establishing that borrowers can seek discharge when lenders fail to provide the requisite information. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX has faced scrutiny regarding its handling of student loans dating back to XXXX. Due to persistent complaints, the Department of Education reassigned many loans to different servicers. Since the Department of Education owns Direct Loans, they have the authority to choose the loan servicer, and they opted to sever ties with XXXX. \n\nMore recently, the State of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against XXXX, resulting in a settlement due to the company 's consistent failure to help students access appropriate repayment plans. For example, borrowers attempting to switch to income-based repayment plans were often incorrectly told by XXXX representatives that they could not, leaving them stuck in high-cost repayment plans they could not afford. \n\nFor borrowers frustrated with their loan servicer, online platforms serve as a rare outlet for expressing concerns. A comment from a borrower named XXXX from a year ago highlighted their dissatisfaction with the service, emphasizing that the situation has not improved since then.. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX, managed private, government, and campus-based student debt until it went out of business on XX/XX/XXXX. If your loans were managed by XXXX, heres what you need to know. \n\nXXXX acted as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers, handling billing, payments, payment plans, customer service, and reporting to credit bureaus. The company changed ownership several times, with XXXX becoming part of XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX after a series of acquisitions. \n\nBoth XXXX and XXXX faced multiple lawsuits and fines. Notably, in XXXX, Massachusetts fined XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for improper loan management. In XXXX, XXXX settled with the New York attorney general over complaints related to expensive loan options and incorrect payment applications. In XXXX, they settled with the Department of Education for providing false information. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, previously operating as XXXX XXXX XXXX, was a firm that facilitated the management of private, government, and campus-based student debt. The company ceased operations on XX/XX/XXXX, resulting in the transfer of its loan portfolio to other servicing entities. This document outlines critical information regarding XXXX 's role, legal challenges, and important instructions for borrowers whose loans were previously managed by XXXX. \n\nXXXX*Company Background*XXXX XXXX operated as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers, providing essential services that included billing, payment processing, management of payment plans, customer service, and the reporting of loan information to credit bureaus. The company underwent several changes in ownership throughout its history ; it was acquired by XXXX in XXXX, subsequently becoming part of XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. Following the termination of its contract with the Department of Education in XXXX, XXXX continued to manage select Federal Family Education Loans ( FFEL ), XXXX Loans, and private student loans. \n\nThese cases highlight the necessity of adequate communication and notification protocols when transitioning loan servicers. If you are facing issues with your loan servicer after a change, you may want to seek legal advice regarding your situation and potential remedies. \n\n\n# # # Legal Framework and Supporting Case Law XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Dept. of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ** : Found that inadequate documentation provided by a loan servicing agency constituted grounds for a discharge of the borrower 's obligations. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX. U.S. Dept. of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ) ** : Addressed the consequences for servicers when they fail to maintain accurate and complete records of borrower interactions and payment history. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ** This case establishes that agencies have discretion in enforcing regulations, which implies that loan servicers are required to provide notice and proper communication regarding changes to borrowers. If a borrower claims they did not receive a notice, it could raise questions about the servicers adherence to regulatory responsibilities. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** In matters of servicer changes, this case emphasizes the importance of transparent communication and documentation in the relationship between borrowers and loan servicers. If your servicer fails to inform you, it could potentially lead to disputes regarding the borrowers rights and obligations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** This case underlines the need for federal entities to comply with notification procedures when managing federal loans. If a servicer changes without proper notice, it could prompt legal scrutiny under federal law. \n\nGiven the compounded emotional and financial distress caused by these ongoing issues, coupled with the absence of proper documentation, I respectfully request the immediate discharge of my student loan. This request includes consideration for compensation related to the distress experienced as a result of inadequate servicing and documentation. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. \n\nI hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally request a discharge of my loan, [ Loan Number ], due to the failure to provide the original documentation that is required under our loan agreement. The absence of this critical documentation raises serious concerns regarding the validity and enforceability of my loan, and I believe it is crucial to address this issue promptly. \n\nAs a borrower of federal student loans, I am entitled to certain fundamental rights under federal law, including the right to receive complete, accurate documentation related to my loan. Specifically, under the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), borrowers are granted significant protections that ensure proper loan servicing and access to accurate information regarding the terms and conditions of their loans. The lack of original documents hampers my ability to understand the specifics of my loan obligations and hinders my rights as a borrower.\n\nIn addition, the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule, codified under 34 C.F.R. 685.206, provides critical protections for borrowers who may have been misled by their educational institutions or if there have been violations of applicable laws. This federal rule allows borrowers like myself to seek discharge of their loans when documentation is lacking or when servicers do not comply with federal regulations. \n\nFurthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the recent Senate Bill 19-002, which was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process. This important legislation emphasizes the need for loan servicers to provide timely access to documentation and clearly outlines that borrowers are eligible for loan discharge if adequate documentation has not been maintained or provided upon request.\n\nAt the state level, the Colorado Student Loan Servicer Licensing Act ( C.R.S. 12-60-1001 et seq. ) establishes rigorous regulations for student loan servicers operating within Colorado. This law requires that servicers obtain a state license and adhere to strict consumer protection standards. Among these standards is the obligation to provide borrowers with clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about loan repayment options, terms, and obligations.\n\nAdditionally, the Colorado Higher Education Statute ( C.R.S. 23-3.1-2003 ) delineates the responsibilities of both higher education institutions and loan servicers in maintaining accurate and verifiable records. This statute mandates that loan servicers must ensure that all documentation related to loans is up-to-date and readily accessible to borrowers upon request, thus further protecting borrowers rights. \n\nMoreover, the Federal Student Aid ( FSA ) guidelines explicitly require loan servicers to maintain and provide adequate documentation to validate loans. These guidelines stress the importance of having original documents that reflect accurate loan terms, amounts, and borrower 's rightsessential information that enables borrowers to manage their loans effectively. \n\nGiven the above circumstances and the serious implications of lacking the required documentation, I kindly request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. Taking this action will not only adhere to regulatory requirements but also uphold my rights as a borrower. \n\nI sincerely appreciate your attention to this pressing matter and look forward to your prompt response. Should you require any further information or additional documentation from my side to facilitate this process, please feel free to reach out to me directly at your convenience. \n\nThank you for your assistance. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX   Furthermore, I have never received a statement from any institution regarding my loan, balance, interest, paymetns etc... \n\n\nWhat I am entitled and not limited too ... ... A student loan agreement includes several important details that outline the terms and conditions of the loan. Here are the key components typically found in a student loan agreement : 1. **Borrower Information** : This includes the name, address, and contact information of the borrower.\n\n2. **Lender Information** : Details about the lender or loan servicer, including their contact information. \n\n3. **Loan Amount** : The total amount of money you are borrowing.\n\n4. **Interest Rate** : The percentage rate at which interest will accrue on the loan. This could be fixed or variable.\n\n5. **Loan Type** : Whether the loan is federal, private, subsidized, or unsubsidized.\n\n6. **Repayment Terms** : This section details the repayment schedule, including the length of the repayment period, monthly payment amounts, and due dates.\n\n7. **Grace Period** : Information about any grace period before repayments begin after you graduate, leave school, or drop below half-time enrollment.\n\n8. **Fees** : Any loan fees that may apply, such as origination fees or late payment fees. \n\n9. **Disbursement Information** : Describes how and when the loan funds will be disbursed to you or your school.\n\n10. **Deferment and Forbearance Options** : Information on options for postponing payments without penalty under certain circumstances.\n\n11. **Default Consequences** : The implications of failing to meet your repayment obligations, including potential damage to your credit score and collections actions.\n\n12. **Consumer Rights** : A summary of your rights as a borrower, including the right to receive disclosures and the right to ask questions.\n\n13. **Signatures** : Places for you and possibly a cosigner to sign, confirming agreement to the terms of the loan.\n\nA disclosure agreement for a student loan, often referred to as a \" Loan Disclosure Statement, '' provides important information about the terms and conditions of the loan. Heres what you can typically find in a student loan disclosure agreement : 1. **Loan Information** : - **Loan Amount** : The total amount you are borrowing.\n\n- **Interest Rate** : The percentage charged on the principal amount, which can be fixed or variable.\n\n2. **Repayment Terms** : - **Repayment Period** : The length of time you will have to repay the loan.\n\n- **Monthly Payment Amount** : The estimated amount you will need to pay each month.\n\n- **First Payment Due Date** : The date when your first payment is expected.\n\n3. **Loan Fees** : - **Origination Fees** : Any fees charged for processing the loan.\n\n- **Late Payment Fees** : Fees that may apply if you do not make your payments on time.\n\n4. **Total Cost of the Loan** : - **Total Interest Paid** : An estimate of the total interest you will pay over the life of the loan.\n\n- **Total Amount That Will Be Repaid** : The total of the loan amount plus interest and fees.\n\n5. **Promissory Note** : Information indicating that you agree to repay the loan as outlined in the document. ORIGINAL WHAT I HAVE IS NOT MY INFO AND IT IS NOT FILLED OUT, I HAVE ALWAYS WORKED 2 JOBS EVEN WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL I WORKED FULL TIME, I NEVER WAS WITHOUT A JOB 6. **Grace Period** : Details about the time period after you graduate or leave school during which you are not required to make payments.\n\n7. **Deferment and Forbearance Options** : Information on options to temporarily postpone or reduce payments if you encounter financial hardship.\n\n8. **Prepayment Options** : Information on whether you can pay off your loan early without penalties.\n\n9. **Contact Information** : Details on how to reach the lender or loan servicer for questions or assistance.\n\n10. **Borrower Rights** : Summary of your rights as a borrower, including the right to receive clear information and assistance if needed.\n\nUnderstanding the details in the disclosure agreement can help you make informed decisions about borrowing and repayment. If you have any questions about the specifics of your loan disclosure, its a good idea to contact your lender or financial aid office for clarification.\n\nWhen you fill out a student loan application, you should expect to receive several key documents : 1. **Loan Agreement** : This is the most important document. It outlines the terms of the loan, including the amount borrowed, interest rate, repayment schedule, and any fees involved.\n\n2. **Disclosure Statement** : This document provides details about the loan, including total loan costs and the estimated monthly payment amount. It helps you understand the financial implications of the loan.\n\n3. **Promissory Note** : You will sign this legal document that binds you to repay the loan according to the agreed terms. It may contain specific conditions of the loan and details about deferment and cancellation options.\n\nAs for tracking payments and interest, lenders typically maintain records in several ways","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-09T20:35:37.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"496XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12388263","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ECMC GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2025-03-09T20:20:04.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Don't agree with the fees charged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** In matters of servicer changes, this <em>case</em> emphasizes the importance of transparent communication and documentation in the relationship between borrowers and loan servicers. If your servicer <em>fails</em> to <em>inform</em> you, it could potentially lead to disputes regarding the borrowers rights and obligations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S."]},"sort":[7.513048,"12388263"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4932749","_score":7.4467306,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My complaint entails ( XXXX ) the failure of Wells Fargo to apply the proper loan modification interest rate for my Covid 19 flex loan modification ( including trial period ) in violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, ( 2 ) Wells Fargos attempt to impose an escrow for flood and property insurance in direct violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines and the threat to eliminate me from loan modification consideration if I did not consent to a flood insurance escrow, ( 3 ) Wells Fargos refusal to even consider a delay in the start date of the loan modification trial period plan given the tardiness of Wells approval and short turnaround time before first payment, ( 4 ) the actions and gross negligence of Wells Fargo employee XXXX XXXX for his false statements, mishandling of my request for loan modification and blatant violation of the XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, ( 5 ) the repeated violation by Wells Fargo of applicable XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, including telling borrowers in writing and verbally that additional written documentation is required for otherwise qualified reduced eligibility Covid 19 flex loan modification applicants and ( 6 ) the need to impose governmental sanctions and penalties upon Wells Fargo for their blatant violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, unacceptable delays in processing my loan modification and bad faith conduct in handling my requests and complaints, all as necessary to discourage continuation of unconscionable servicer behavior by Wells Fargo. \n\n\nBy way of background, Wells Fargo is the loan servicer for my XXXX XXXX conforming XXXX loan. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX from Wells Fargo called me to discuss my options following the XX/XX/XXXX expiration of my Covid 19 mortgage forbearance. XXXX asked me a series of questions regarding my continuing Covid hardship and after going through the options, I informed XXXX of my desire to request a Covid-19 flex loan modification. XXXX indicated he would submit my request to underwriting and that I could expect a call back in about 3 weeks from a single point of contact. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX ( based in XXXX XXXX, TX ), a supervisor who after listening to a recording of my call with XXXX, informed me that XXXX had provided me with incorrect information. Among other things, XXXX XXXX informed me that I was required to make an initial down payment in good faith in the amount of my regularly scheduled payment and that if I did not, deferral of unpaid amounts until the maturity of the loan was no longer an option [ this was a false statement ]. I informed XXXX XXXX that I had not requested a deferral but was in fact seeking a Covid-19 flex loan modification. He then told me that a Covid-19 Flex loan modification is not on the table [ this was also a false statement ]. He also stated that a separate department deals with modifications and that I would be required to provide income and asset information and household expense information before I could be considered for a flex loan modification [ another false statement ]. I insisted upon applying for a flex loan modification and XXXX XXXX stated he would check and get back to me. XXXX XXXX then called back later that day after speaking with an underwriter that works with the investor on my loan and XXXX XXXX informed me that he could take an application for a flex loan modification. XXXX XXXX then asked me a series of questions necessary to apply for a flex loan modification which I answered and XXXX XXXX stated he would submit my request to underwriting. I never asked XXXX XXXX to request a deferral [ which unbeknownst to me XXXX XXXX had done ] and I informed XXXX XXXX that I was interested in pursuing the flex loan modification at that point. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the Wells Fargo underwriter assigned to my case unilaterally adjusted my account and without my consent placed my loan into the deferral program and scheduled my regularly schedule monthly payment which I was paying pre-forbearance to recommence on XX/XX/XXXX. I received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX, Senior Vice President of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, confirming same. A copy of that letter is attached. The letter states in part near the end We are offering you a payment assistance program based on a partial review of your loan. If you would like a complete review of your loan, which includes a review for other assistance options, additional documentation is required. ( emphasis added ). This written statement is a direct misstatement of the XXXX XXXX  reduced eligibility requirements for Covid 19 flex loan modification relief, which in no uncertain terms do not require any further documentation from an otherwise qualified borrower. In my opinion, Wells Fargo included this misleading verbiage to discourage qualified borrowers from pursuing a Covid 19 flex loan modification under the reduced eligibility requirements. \n\n\nI then called and spoke to XXXX at Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, who informed me that the underwriter had reviewed my file, approved me for deferment, and that my case had been closed with the home preservation department which handles requests for loan modification. I then requested XXXX to ( 1 ) file a complaint on my behalf with the Wells Fargo Executive Office as a result of these irregular and unlawful actions, ( 2 ) remove me from deferral and ( 3 ) reinstate my request for loan modification consideration. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Executive Office, brought her up to speed on what had transpired and XXXX XXXX indicated that an Executive Office case manager would be assigned to my case and get back to me. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX called me, told me she was my Executive Office case manager and would look into my complaint. I also reached out to a HUD approved loan counselor to guide me through this process and help me respond to the actions of Wells Fargo. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed me she had requested that the processing of my deferral be reversed and that underwriting consider me for a Covid 19 flex loan modification as originally requested. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that my request for consideration for a loan modification was granted. A copy of the XX/XX/XXXX letter from XXXX XXXX confirming same is attached. As a side note, I point out that since my original appeal to the Wells Fargo Executive Office, I have been assigned, reassigned and passed around to XXXX different Executive Office case managers, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and finally XXXX XXXX, each occasion necessitating my time and energy to bring them up to speed. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX XXXX, the home preservation specialist assigned to my case, which email contained a link informing me that I was required to submit a Borrower Response Package ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) before I could continue with the loan modification. I responded back by email on XX/XX/XXXX informing XXXX XXXX that the request of Wells Fargo violated the recently enacted XXXX XXXX  servicing guidelines and that I qualified for a loan modification based upon the recently enacted reduced eligibility requirements. A copy of my XX/XX/XXXX email is attached. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX XXXX who informed me that no XXXX would be required and that my loan modification request was now in underwriting. XXXX XXXX also informed me that the request for a XXXX XXXX XXXX was part of a mass generic emailing sent to all applicants for loan modification at the beginning of the modification process which he did not have the power to override. I wonder how many potential applicants for Covid 19 loan relieve stopped the process of applying based upon Wells demand that a borrower complete an unneeded and unwarranted multi-page application calling for a borrowers personal and proprietary financial information. Despicable conduct on the part of Wells Fargo, to say the least. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo requested that I consent to escrow for flood insurance through so-called Borrower Correspondence . A copy of the Wells Fargo XX/XX/XXXX letter is attached. I denied such request and provided Wells Fargo with the XXXX XXXX  servicing guidelines which indicated that under my circumstances, establishment of an escrow was not permissible, inasmuch as I did not have an escrow in place prior to applying for a loan modification and because all taxes and insurance were current. I also pointed out that XXXX continued operation in violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines would result in a complaint being filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A copy of my submittal along with my XX/XX/XXXX email to XXXX XXXX is attached. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, after my initial rejection of Wells ' request to consent, I was again requested to consent to a flood insurance escrow which again I refused. XXXX XXXX then informed me that per the Wells Fargo lending team I was required to consent to the escrow and if I did not, Wells would reject my request for a loan modification. Wells imposed a XX/XX/XXXX deadline to consent. I again repeated my request for the justification for such escrow, given that it appeared to contradict the XXXX XXXX  servicing guideline entitled Performing an escrow analysis for a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for COVID 19 impacted borrowers implemented XX/XX/XXXX and updated XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded back stating Based on the Federal Governments National Flood Insurance Act Regulations we do have requirements for the flood insurance to be escrowed. A Copy of such letter is attached. I again requested that Wells specifically identify the governmental regulations requiring an escrow, but Wells refused to provide such information, indicating on their website to do list that my failure to consent before XX/XX/XXXX would result in my elimination from consideration for a loan modification. I informed XXXX XXXX that I would consider consenting, but only if XXXX  provided specific legal evidence of the requirement. Wells failed to provide such evidence. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX announced that effective XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX would be raising their loan modification interest rate to 3.125 % from 2.875 %, the lower rate having been in effect since XX/XX/XXXX and throughout the entirety of my loan modification evaluation period. Faced with an impending interest rate increase and the threat of losing my loan modification altogether, I reluctantly consented under duress on XX/XX/XXXX to escrow flood insurance only. A copy of my consent letter is attached. I also emphasized to my home preservation specialist that although I believed I was entitled to the lower interest rate because Wells had been evaluating my request for over 9 weeks, I wanted to make sure my approval would be completed as soon as possible, but in any event before XX/XX/XXXX, as XXXX XXXX had informed me that all contingencies to approval of the loan modification had been resolved, other than the flood insurance escrow. \n\n\nWith 9 days to finalize approval of the trial period for the loan modification after I consented to escrow flood insurance before the new interest rate took effect, after being told by XXXX XXXX that all steps necessary for approval of my trial period plan had been approved except escrow implementation and despite daily requests for status updates from my home preservation specialist, all of which were either ignored or indicated as still under review by Wells lending division, Wells waited until the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, the first day of the interest rate increase, to approve the trial period plan, and then had the audacity to impose the higher interest rate, notwithstanding that Wells had been evaluating my request for over two months. The XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines specifically provide that the servicer must use the current Fannie Mae Modification Interest Rate indicated below when evaluating a borrower for a conventional mortgage loan modification. See attached XXXX XXXX Modification Interest Rate Exhibit guideline. Wells should have applied the lower rate because the entirety of the evaluation was conducted during the lower interest rate period and only 1 day, XX/XX/XXXX, was arguably covered under the higher interest rate period. \n\n\nWhen I was finally approved for my trial period on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed me on that same day that the interest rate for my trial period was set at 3.125 % and I would be required to escrow flood insurance in the approximate amount of {$54.00} per month. I was subsequently shocked to learn pursuant to an escrow letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and posted on line under my account statements, that my escrow payment would be {$220.00} per month and would now include, in addition to flood insurance, an escrow for property insurance and an escrow shortage component, notwithstanding that I never consented to any escrow beyond flood insurance ( and that consent was coerced by Wells under duress ) and the XXXX XXXX  escrow servicing guidelines expressly prohibiting establishment of an escrow under my situation. A copy of the Wells escrow letter is attached. As previously enumerated by the XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, copies of which I forwarded to Wells weeks earlier, no such escrow is required. \n\n\nFinally, my request to start my initial trial period on XX/XX/XXXX in lieu of the proposed XX/XX/XXXX start date, has been completely ignored by Wells Fargo, without even the courtesy of a response. I had asked for this delay to give me some breathing room to line up my finances to ensure that I am able to successfully complete the requirements of the trial period plan, given the short turnaround from the XX/XX/XXXX approval date and the XX/XX/XXXX start date. \n\n\nFinally, I point out that the recently enacted XX/XX/XXXX modification to the XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines regarding escrows now expressly reference payment of flood insurance premiums in connection with the rules for no escrows, all of the conditions of which I satisfy for waiver of escrow. A copy of my email to XXXX XXXX informing Wells of such update is attached.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-21T06:09:44.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"90291","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4932749","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-11-21T00:32:21.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I then called and spoke to XXXX at Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, who informed me that the underwriter had reviewed my file, approved me for deferment, and that my <em>case</em> had been <em>closed</em> with the home preservation department which handles requests for loan modification."]},"sort":[7.4467306,"4932749"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4132864","_score":6.995883,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX my car was hit by an unlicensed driver and was not drivable. A police report was filed and the officer requested a tow to the nearest tow facility. I reported the accident to the at-fault driver 's insurance company. I later filed with my own XXXX insurance because I could not wait for XXXX XXXX to handle my claim. I gave my adjuster the contact info for Bridgecrest Total Loss Department. The adjuster went out to inspect the car a few days later, and the car was GONE. The tow facility advised that Bridgecrest had ordered a REPOSSESSION. I have never once been late on a payment and have had full-coverage insurance in place on this car since day one. I called Bridgecrest and no one ONCE mentioned that this was a repossession and stated that they moved the car because it was \" their right to do so because it was considered abandoned. '' My car was never abandoned! The insurance company was doing their due diligence and informed me that they would handle the entire claim. I was also told that I was NOT ALLOWED to speak to the Bridgecrest Total Loss Department -- only my insurance adjuster could do that. I called Bridgecrest Customer Service once again to advise that this car should NOT have been repossessed because I was not behind on payment and was not in default in any way. The rep proceeded to inform me that it was their policy to retrieve cars after being in an accident in order to \" stop the towing charges, '' but no one can or will provide me with any documentation of this policy. I then submitted a XXXX XXXX XXXX complaint which resulted in immediate contact from Bridgecrest ( this was the first contact I have EVER received from them, after I filed a complaint ). The Bridgecrest Compliance Dept rep rudely informed me that the only way I could get my car back was to redeem or reinstate it per the \" offer '' they mailed, and this letter was dated XX/XX/XXXX ( 15 days after the accident, and I had received no contact whatsoever by phone, email, or otherwise prior to this letter ). The letter dated XX/XX/XXXX was sent by First Class snail mail and was not delivered to me until XX/XX/XXXX. The letter stated that I only had until XX/XX/XXXX to come up with {$3000.00} to redeem the car- {$2000.00} loan balance and {$930.00} \" expenses of retaking the vehicle, '' which should have never happened to begin with! I continued to argue that my car should not be listed as \" repossessed '' when I was never late and never violated a single part of my contract. The Compliance Dept. rep said \" Its too bad that you don't like my answers, but that's the way we do things. '' My insurance adjuster attempted on XX/XX/XXXX once again to do the inspection at the new location Bridgecrest had said my car was towed to. Once again, the car was not there! On XX/XX/XXXX I was able to track my vehicle to a location nearly an hour away from where it was originally towed to, which resulted in the need for a new XXXX adjuster to be assigned due to the new location being so far from the original. On XX/XX/XXXX my new adjuster went to the new location and did the initial inspection of my car, all the while I am being told that I had to pay off my car plus all of their fees if I didn't want my car to be sold! They repeatedly gave me inaccurate and misleading information, always glossing over the \" repossession '' aspect and simply telling me that they only moved the car to save us all from the towing fees. I repeatedly told them that my insurance would be paying all of those fees! The XXXX liability agent contacted Bridgecrest Total Loss Department once again and they refused to provide him any information, other than to tell him that they would not allow my car to be towed to a repair shop for further inspection to determine the extent of internal/computer damage ( so that a settlement could be prepared to end this nightmare ). Finally on XXXX, Bridgecrest agreed to send photos to XXXX to help them determine if the car was a total loss or not. The car had already been visually inspected -- photos didn't help anything. All it did was drag this out even further, and Bridgecrest could only tell me that their fee would continue to go up each day. The XXXX liability agent called the Total Loss Department once again and they informed him that all I had to do was call Bridgecrest and give them permission to release the vehicle to XXXX. I made the call and was told that no, in fact, this was not the case. They told me that I would need to sign and have notarized a release document, in addition to providing a XXXX driving history, among other things. A driving history?? I have done nothing wrong!! They disabled my online account which makes it impossible for me to make online payments during this nightmare ( and I have made one payment -- on time -- during this process already, with another due next week ). They will also not allow my insurance company to pay the fees to retrieve the car because the only options for payment are debit cards or cash at XXXX. Unbelievable! Yesterday, XX/XX/XXXX, my credit score dropped 95 POINTS due to a repossession being reported by Bridgecrest. I am not and have never been delinquent in any way, nor have I failed to uphold any part of the contract. This is not a financial issue, nor is it a credit or contract issue. It is the predatory and abusive \" policies '' under which Bridgecrest does business with no regard whatsoever for loyal customers with exceptional payment history. I would love nothing more than to pay the {$2000.00} balance I owe on my loan and move on my way to a reputable lender, but I have no faith that Bridgecrest will ever provide me with the title to my car, nor will they accurately report my balance. My credit report now shows my Bridgecrest account as CLOSED, even though my car hasn't even been deemed a total loss! The inspection can not be completed due to them moving my car and not allowing XXXX to complete their process and offer a settlement. My credit report says that my account was \" never late, '' and the payment history illustrates on-time payments each and every month, yet Bridgecrest has ruined my credit without just cause. I demand that this negative information be REMOVED from all credit bureaus immediately. I do still have a balance on my loan, but it is NOT PAST DUE ( never was ) and should not be listed under a negative credit report entry! This action is deceitful and damaging, and I will pursue all legal action required to remedy the situation, as I have paid faithfully and taken excellent care of my care, including full-coverage insurance which I am TRYING to utilize to repair the car. My next complaint will be to the Attorney General and other appropriate entities.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-11T17:31:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"46112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4132864","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2021-02-11T16:31:38.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The rep proceeded to <em>inform</em> me that it was their policy to retrieve cars after being in an accident in order to \" stop the towing charges, '' but no one can or will provide me with any documentation of this policy. I then submitted a XXXX XXXX XXXX complaint which <em>resulted</em> in immediate contact from Bridgecrest ( this was the first contact I have EVER received from them, after I filed a complaint )."]},"sort":[6.995883,"4132864"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4690325","_score":6.995661,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX contacted Academy Mortgage Loan Administration Customer Service about the escrow statement they sent. The issues reported at that time via phone call was : 1 ) The company made multiple payments to PMI during XXXX some months 2 ) The company was paying the wrong amount to PMI in XXXX every month 3 ) The increase in mortgage payment to cover an escrow deficiency was too high, and I requested an explanation about how such an escrow discrepancy occurred. I was informed they opened a case and would get back to me, and that the Escrow account was being looked into. I was also told to email XXXX about the PMI issues. I did this on XX/XX/XXXX and received an auto response from PMI that something would be mailed to physical mailing address on file by 30 days. This never happened. I called Academy Mortgage CS again in XX/XX/XXXX, spoke with a different CS rep who said that the inquiry from the other agent I spoke with was \" closed having been opened in error ''. She also said the email address I was given was only for removing pmi from the account, therefore I would never get a response. Frustrated I requested how to deal with this in writing since calling CS was not working and was told there was zero option whatsoever to submit a written issue. Then I was told the only option is to fax this number XXXX with my issue. I don't have a fax. At this point I enlisted the assistance of the Academy Mortgage brokers I used to purchase the home and they got involved. Via email communication I requested to know who I can escalate the issue with to get some type of resolve because a fax number was unacceptable option and having gotten the run around for over a month now I wanted things in writing. The brokers stated they would see what they could do to help. The disclosure statement indicated PMI was XXXX but what was being paid was XXXX per month, sometimes multiple times a month. They said the shortage was due to taxes being estimated at XXXX which was on the disclosure form as well, but they were XXXX in actuality. The hazard insurance was also short by XXXX. Therefore the total shortage in the escrow account should only have been XXXX. To resolve this deficiency, Academy mortgage raised the monthly mortgage by over XXXX a month to \" catch up '' the escrow account. That is XXXX more per year to pay into the escrow account, when the total yearly payout from the escrow account should be XXXX. That increase seems to be well above the 1/6th allowed cushion. The brokers stated that they got the PMI issue resolved as far as the correct amount going forward which should only be XXXX. They stated the over payments in PMI would be refunded back to us. Several weeks later when the refund didnt happen they said they were told that the refund would be handled by not making a PMI payment for the month of XXXX of this year. However, in XXXX they paid the wrong amount of XXXX, and then every month since they paid the XXXX twice a month. To date we have not gotten the refund in our escrow account or via snail mail. They also tried to sell a refinance to remove PMI completely which would incur additional costs of broker fees. After looking at the fees and costs of a refi, I requested that the issue be corrected instead and declined a refinance which doesnt help financially and at this point we have zero confidence in the competence of this company. They also email the PMI email address at the direction of their contact on the servicing side with me CC 'd. After 60 days, the PMI response said the PMI email is for removal of PMI only and PMI can not assist with the issue. PMI said to contact Academy Mortgage Customer service. Getting absolutely no where on these issues which just seem to be compounding, and meanwhile now having to pay a much larger mortgage than expected, on XXXX I contacted academy mortgage loan administration via the secure messaging on their customer portal. I created three separate tickets for the three separate issues as defined in their portal. PMI, Escrow, and Taxes. In the PMI payments issue I attached a scan of all the emails with the brokers regarding the incorrect PMI payments and the refund requested. The response was very predicable, they said Dear Borrower, Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the mortgage insurance requirement on your mortgage.If you feel you have met the guidelines for removal or you have any inquiry about the requirements, please submit a written request to : XXXX.You may continue any ongoing dialog regarding PMI through that email address. Thank you for being a valued member. To which I responded that was not helpful that email doesn't handle the question. The next response was Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding PMI. This message is to inform you that your inquiry has been acknowledged and is being researched at this time. Please anticipate a 12 day response time for this particular issue. After 12 days I inquired on a status update and got this response : This is in response to your recent email regarding your Private Mortgage Insurance ( PMI ) payments. Please be advised that the turn around time for an accurate response is 30 days. You may follow up with our PMI Department for further assistance. PMI Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Alternatively, the request and any additional questions may be sent via email to XXXX. I responded with : XXXX XXXX stated 12 days to respond on XXXX, XXXX XXXX stated 12 days to respond on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX says 30 days to respond on XX/XX/XXXX It has been over 30 days since this issue has been brought to your attention and resolution has been requested. In fact it has now been 90 days since putting this issue in writing originally, and about 30 days additional if we just go by when I called into CS the first time to report this issue. So the question is : When will we be refunded our money that you incorrectly paid to PMI? Given the excessive amount of time to resolve this issue, it really should have been refunded by now. And the response was Dear Borrower, Please be advised we have an open task for our Conversions Department to take a look at your PMI Discrepancy. We have attached the original correspondence you sent on XX/XX/XXXX for their review. Please follow up after XX/XX/XXXX for an update. In the Escrow ticket I gave a summary of the escrow issues I saw requesting why we were being asked to pay XXXX more per month to catch up a max shortfall of XXXX ( which includes their mistake of paying to much PMI in the balance ). Their response was a breakdown of the monthly payment and to say the shortage was XXXX which didn't match their own escrow statement. I responded asking how they were going to correct the incorrect PMI payments which where largely contributing to the shortage, pointed out the multiple payments that went out as well as a new estimated tax which was additional and not part of our loan also causing an incorrect amount. The response was : Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding PMI. This message is to inform you that your inquiry has been acknowledged and is being researched at this time. Please anticipate a 11 day response time for this particular issue. After 11 days followed up and got : Please be advised your PMI concern is still under review. We ask that you allow additional time for resolution. after a couple more weeks inquired on an update and got : Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding your account. Our records show the PMI inquiry still being researched. Regarding the tax issue I sent : Currently the loan shows taxes and insurance upcoming in XX/XX/XXXX of a value of XXXX. I am writing to request what this is related to exactly? This appears to be in error and should be removed from this account. Also if you review the escrow disbursements from last year you will see that you only paid one tax for the property. The response was predictably unhelpful : Dear Borrower, Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding your loan. Please be advised that the tax amounts listed in our servicing systems and secure website may be different than what is requested by the taxing authority. This amount is updated only upon payment of the taxes and not based on the amounts reported due this year from your tax office. Please be assured that our Tax Department will verify the correct amount due prior to disbursing payment. Once payment is disbursed from your escrow account, the site will reflect the actual payment paid. I responded with : This response did not address the question. You are showing two estimated tax accounts, there should only be one. I sent these correspondences to the brokers very frustrated they said they would escalate on their side but it's not their department. The person that it got escalated to called me on XX/XX/XXXX to walk through all the issues directly, clarify her questions said she had been working on it for over a week at that point was hoping for an update on friday XX/XX/XXXX. Friday came and went and in the meantime, PMI responded to the brokers email turfing the PMI issues to academy mortgage customer service. Followed up in email again. on XX/XX/XXXX the update from the person it was escalated to was no update on the PMI and escrow issue, but on the Tax issue they requested a refund from XXXX County for the tax amount of XXXX and said it may take 120 days to get the refund back from the county. I responded to this update providing their own Escrow statement which shows they never made a payment for that amount. Reiterated that the question was why did that amount show up as estimated tax due in XXXX because it should not be on the account at all. Requested documentation and proof that they ever made a payment to XXXX county and also inquired why if a payment was made it is not on the escrow statement? I requested that a resolution and response on all the issues occur by end of day XX/XX/XXXX because at this point after over 4 months of dealing with this, 3 of them in written format via email it was beyond ridiculous that we are this far down the road with zero resolution. On XXXX after I emailed asking for an update the response was no update and they sent it over to a relationship manager to assist. At this point I believe this company is violating several Mortgage servicing regulations. \nImproper Error Resolution procedures, Improper Timely Response practices, etc. Their staff clearly need training on how to handle issues and inquires, as well as how to response with accurate information. We are owed a minimum refund of XXXX that they incorrectly paid out to PMI per their own reporting statements. This refund is way past due in our perspective. It should be returned to the Escrow account Immediately.\n\nThe escrow account discrepancy is directly a result of mistakes they have made with PMI payments and the additional Tax estimate of XXXX which are entirely their errors. The additional shortage is because the tax for the property was incorrect on the disclosure and short XXXX. The hazard insurance was also incorrect, and the actual amount different between the disclosure and true pay out it is XXXX. It is their responsibility and obligation to correct these issues in a timely manner when reported to them. They have failed to do this. This was reported originally in XXXX. Its now XXXX and still unresolved. The amount of labor and time involved on our side should be compensated because it is significantly time consuming having to deal with this company and their incompetence. They have increased our monthly mortgage to be over XXXX per month more than originally disclosed at time of purchase one year ago. That is way to high for the total shortage in taxes and hazard insurance, which is only XXXX. When bringing this to their attention they have yet to explain why it is required for us to pay over XXXX a year more to make up a shortage of XXXX. They have refused to re-analyze the escrow account, and they have failed to refund the PMI money they paid in error to the escrow account or to us directly. They are required to remove incorrect tax estimates for properties that are not part of the loan from the escrow account. This is not a tax payment they will make on our behalf, nor is it a property tied to this loan. Now that they are stating they made payments and requested refunds for said payments, but they did not report the payment as coming out of our escrow account, they are also required to provide the proof of this once it has been requested by us. They have not done so.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-03T19:57:54.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"758XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4690325","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Academy Mortgage Corporation","date_received":"2021-09-03T17:43:19.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They have <em>failed</em> to do this. This was reported <em>originally</em> in XXXX. Its now XXXX and still unresolved. The amount of labor and time involved on our side should be compensated because it is significantly time consuming having to deal with this company and their incompetence. They have increased our monthly mortgage to be over XXXX per month more than <em>originally</em> disclosed at time of purchase one year ago. That is way to high for the total shortage in taxes and hazard insurance, which is only XXXX."]},"sort":[6.995661,"4690325"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13971583","_score":5.7513905,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Social Security number XXXX DOB : XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit reports. This account ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) was opened around XX/XX/XXXX, with a current reported balance of {$2000.00}. It is being reported as a collection on my XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX  reports as of XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute the legitimacy and accuracy of this account and believe XXXX reporting violates federal law. First, the balance being reported ( {$2000.00} ) is grossly inflated and inaccurate. My records indicate the original credit limit on the XXXX card was {$1400.00}, yet XXXX is reporting a much higher balance, likely due to added interest or fees. This inflated amount has never been validated with any documentation. Reporting a balance that exceeds the original debt without proof is misleading and constitutes a false representation of the debts character and amount ftc.gov. XXXX has failed to provide any breakdown or verification to justify this amount, despite my disputes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), information on a credit report must be accurate and verifiable, and any information that can not be verified must be deleted consumerfinance.gov files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX continued reporting of this unverified, inflated balance shows a blatant disregard for the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Second, I have never received proper validation of this debt from XXXX. I requested debt validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in writing ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), yet XXXX did not cease collection or provide the required verification. Instead, they persisted in reporting this account each month, which is illegal. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits a debt collector from continuing collection activities without first validating the debt upon request ftc.gov. XXXX failure to produce any evidence that I owe this debt, while continuing to report it as a derogatory item, is a direct violation of FDCPA and my consumer rights. This account is unverifiable in its current state XXXX has not proven that I am the legitimate debtor or that the amount is correct. Third, I want to note that I disputed this account with the credit bureaus, and it is marked as disputed on at least one bureau. However, XXXX failed to properly investigate and correct the errors. The account remains, with the same inflated balance and no indication of any proof. By verifying the account without actual documentation, XXXX and the bureaus have violated FCRA Section 611, which requires a reasonable investigation and removal of information that can not be verified. The FCRA also holds data furnishers like XXXX responsible under Section 623 to report only accurate information and to correct or delete information if it is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. XXXX  lack of response to my dispute and its continued reporting of suspect information demonstrate a willful neglect of these obligations. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection account that is inaccurate, unverified, and legally unenforceable. This harms me every day it remains on my credit file. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to investigate and enforce the law in this matter. XXXX should be compelled to provide proof of the debts validity and amount or, failing that, delete this account permanently from all consumer credit bureaus. Their current conduct reporting an unverified, inflated debt violates the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy and the FDCPAs prohibitions on false and unfair collection practices. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX to delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from my XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX credit reports immediately XXXX XXXX XXXXue to the aforementioned FCRA and FDCPA violations. Additionally, I request a formal investigation into XXXX collection and reporting activities, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to prevent this kind of consumer harm. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed debt and FCRA/FDCPA violations To Whom It XXXX Concern : I am filing an official complaint regarding another collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX This account was originally opened around XX/XX/XXXX and is tied to a XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The current reported balance is {$600.00}, and it appears on my Equifax, XXXX XXXX XXXX  credit reports as a collection account. I dispute this account in its entirety and assert that XXXX reporting and collection of this debt are rife with legal violations. First, this debt is unverified and of questionable ownership. I have no recollection of ever incurring a {$600.00} debt with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX has provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate that I am responsible for this account. I demanded validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX via written correspondence in early XXXX, as is my right under the FDCPA. To date, XXXX has failed to produce any validation no signed contract, no account statements, not even basic account records linking me to this debt. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt or requests validation, the collector must cease collection and verify the debt before taking further action ftc.gov. XXXX ignored this requirement. They continued reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting collection without ever mailing me the requested verification. This is an improper collection activity without debt validation, a clear violation of my FDCPA rights. Second, XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information is not verifiable or accurate. The FCRA requires that any information on a credit report be complete, accurate, and capable of being verified. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX can not verify the debt they have no proof of my liability yet they continue to report it as a valid collection. This account is effectively unverifiable, and by law it should not be on my credit report at all. I also believe the account details are incomplete. For instance, the credit reports do not clearly show the date of first delinquency or any itemization of the {$600.00} balance. Such omissions make it impossible to determine if the debt is within the allowable reporting period or if the amount includes unauthorized fees. In short, XXXX has not met its burden under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The presence of an unverified collection account is causing significant damage to my creditworthiness and is fundamentally unfair. Third, I previously disputed this collection with the credit bureaus ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) in an effort to have it investigated. XXXX responded to the bureaus investigations by allegedly verifying the debt, yet they provided me with no documentation or evidence during that process. It appears XXXX simply affirmed the debt as valid without conducting a reasonable investigation. This perfunctory verification violates FCRA Section 611, which obligates furnishers to investigate disputes thoroughly and delete information that can not be verified. Moreover, XXXX did not mark the account as disputed by consumer on all my credit reports, which it is required to do once I notified them of my dispute. Under FDCPA Section 807 ( 8 ), its a deceptive practice for a debt collector to report credit information that is known to be false, including failing to communicate that a debt is disputed ftc.gov. XXXX omission of the dispute notation further demonstrates their negligent and deceptive approach to credit reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect and report a debt that I do not recognize and which they have not validated. This is both unprofessional and unlawful. The account information is unverified, incomplete, and thus in violation of FCRAs accuracy standards and FDCPAs validation requirements. I respectfully request the CFPBs intervention to correct this situation. Requested Relief : I ask that the CFPB direct XXXX to immediately and permanently delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all credit bureaus XXXX XXXX since they have not demonstrated any legitimate basis for reporting it. Furthermore, I request that CFPB investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for their collection practices in this case, including their failure to validate the debt and their improper credit reporting. No consumer should be subjected to a collection entry that the collector can not even prove is real. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dispute of inaccurate debt reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding a collection account handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), appearing on my credit reports. The account number is XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( partial ), opened on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$460.00}. The original creditor is listed as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This account is reported on my XXXX XXXX XXXX credit files as a collection account. I firmly dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of this debt and believe XXXX reporting and collection actions are violating my consumer rights. First, the information XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The tradeline does not contain sufficient detail to verify the debt. For example, the balance of {$460.00} is not explained or itemized I have not been provided any statement showing how this amount was calculated or if it includes any interest or fees post-charge-off. I am concerned that the status or balance may be incorrect, yet XXXX has not corrected it. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, the XXXX account information falls into those categories. I have never seen a single piece of evidence ( such as a signed agreement or billing statements from XXXX XXXX ) that definitively proves this {$460.00} debt is mine and reported correctly. Without such verification, the continued presence of this collection on my credit report is unjustified. It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per federal law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a clear validation notice by mail. To resolve my doubts, I mailed a debt validation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, asking for proof that I owe this debt ( e.g. the original account agreement and an account statement ). XXXX did not respond with any validation documents. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), a debt collector must provide verification of the debt upon a consumers request and must cease collection efforts until that verification is provided ftc.gov. XXXX silence and continued reporting indicate a disregard for this law. They continued to report the collection account to the credit bureaus without ever substantiating the debt when asked an improper collection practice. Furthermore, since I disputed the debt, any continued reporting should have been marked as disputed. XXXX failed to mark the account as disputed on my credit report, which is a deceptive practice under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ftc.gov. This omission makes it look as if I accept the debt, which is false and damaging. Third, I want to highlight that the timeline and handling of this account raise concerns under the CFPBs own debt collection rules. The collection was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, but I only noticed it on my credit reports later. If XXXX reported this debt to the bureaus before properly contacting me, that would violate the CFPBs Regulation F. Debt collectors must notify a consumer about a debt and wait a reasonable period ( usually 14 days ) before reporting to credit bureaus consumerfinance.gov. In my case, I have no record of XXXX speaking with me or sending a letter that I actually received prior to seeing the item on my reports. If they sent a notice, I did not get it, and they apparently did not confirm receipt before reporting. Reporting a collection without ensuring I was notified is an unfair practice and contravenes the spirit of the CFPBs guidelines and the FDCPAs requirements for fair notification. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that lacks verification and contains possible inaccuracies. XXXX has not validated the debt nor ensured the information is correct or fairly presented. This situation has caused significant distress, as my credit score is being impacted by an entry that I can not even confirm as legitimate. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to put an end to this. Requested Action : I urge the CFPB to compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to remove the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all of my credit reports XXXX XXXX due to their failure to verify its accuracy and their failure to adhere to federal collection laws. At minimum, XXXX should be required to provide full validation of the debt ( original contract, account statements, proof of ownership of the debt, etc. ) if they wish to continue reporting it. If they can not promptly provide irrefutable proof, the only lawful and fair outcome is to delete this collection account entirely. I also ask that CFPB review XXXX conduct in this case for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA, and take appropriate enforcement action if violations are found. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Acct # XXXX ) Charged-off account reporting dispute To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a complaint against XXXXXXXX XXXX regarding the reporting of a charged-off XXXX store credit card account ( account number ending in * XXXX ) on my credit reports. This account was opened in or around XX/XX/XXXX and was charged off around late XXXX with an original charge-off balance of approximately {$2000.00}. Currently, the credit bureaus list the account as Closed Charged Off with a {$0.00} balance ( reflecting that the debt was sold or transferred ). It appears on my XXXX Equifax, and XXXX  reports as a negative item. I believe XXXX continued reporting of this account is incomplete, misleading, and in violation of the FCRA, and I am requesting that it be removed. First, the information XXXXXXXX XXXX is reporting about this account is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, thereby violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After the charge-off, XXXX sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as evidenced by a XXXX collection entry for this same account ). However, XXXX tradeline on my credit report does not clearly indicate the transfer or the fact that I no longer owe any balance to XXXX. The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully inform creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively results in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX  ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation. While technically original creditors and collectors can both report, the combination of these entries is painting an excessively negative picture that is not wholly accurate. XXXX entry still shows the debt as a serious derogatory mark even though XXXX has no remaining interest in it. I contend that this is not maximum possible accuracy as required by the FCRA. Second, the account information is not verifiable or up-to-date, which means it should be deleted. I have disputed this account directly with XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) and through the credit bureaus, on the grounds that XXXX no longer possesses the account ( having sold it ) and thus can not verify its details. In response, XXXX did not provide any substantive verification. They have not produced any original account documents or clarifications ; the credit bureaus simply left the charge-off in place. The FCRA states that if information is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, that information must be corrected or removed from the credit report files.consumerfinance.gov. Given that XXXX XXXX no longer owns the debt, it is doubtful they retained the full documentation or incentive to investigate thoroughly. The lack of response to my dispute indicates that the accuracy of this tradeline can not be confirmed. Additionally, certain details on the account may be outdated. The Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Ive noticed some reports list a later major delinquency reported date ( possibly due to the charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX ). I want to ensure XXXX reported the true original delinquency date to the bureaus. If they failed to do so, that is an FCRA violation as well. ( Any re-aging of the delinquency date to keep the account on reports longer would be illegal ). In summary, XXXX charge-off entry is unverified and outdated information that should no longer be on my reports. Third, it is fundamentally unfair and against the intent of the FCRAs obsolescence rules for this charged-off account to linger on my credit file given the circumstances. The FCRA generally limits negative information to a 7-year reporting period files.consumerfinance.gov. While this account is about 4 years old since the delinquency ( so still within the timeframe ), I want to emphasize that I am suffering ongoing harm from an account that has been resolved in the sense that XXXX closed it and sold it off. XXXX XXXX washed its hands of this debt when it sold it, yet I continue to be punished by the mark on my credit. The spirit of the law is to allow consumers to move on after a reasonable period. In this case, removal of the XXXX tradeline would not cause XXXX any loss ( they no longer have stake in the debt ) but would greatly help my credit rebuild. I respectfully assert that leaving this mark through XXXX does not serve a fair purpose it is simply punitive. Moreover, as mentioned, the existence of the XXXX collection for the same account means the debts impact is duplicative. It is neither accurate nor fair for both to remain if one can be removed. For these reasons, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to address XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting of the XXXX account. XXXX  has not provided verification of the debts accuracy and has left an incomplete, duplicative derogatory item on my reports. This does not comply with FCRA requirements for accuracy and verifiability. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB instruct XXXXXXXX XXXX to XXXX  permanently delete the XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all consumer credit reporting agencies. This deletion is warranted due to the lack of verification and the fact that the debt has been transferred. I also request that CFPB ensure XXXX updates any of its reporting practices so that when debts are sold, the trade lines are either not reported as negatives or are clearly notated and removed once the transferee is reporting. At a minimum, if outright deletion is not immediately ordered, XXXX should mark the account as disputed and investigate my claims thoroughly. However, given the circumstances, I firmly believe deletion is the proper and just outcome. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Dispute of charged-off account reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX card issued by XXXX XXXX ( account number ending in XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported on my credit reports. This account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and charged off in XXXX. The charge-off amount was {$600.00}, and the account is currently listed on my XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX reports as a closed, charged-off account with a {$0.00} balance ( indicating the debt was sold or assigned to a collection agency ). I assert that XXXX  reporting of this account is inaccurate and unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and I am seeking the CFPBs assistance to have this matter corrected through deletion of the tradeline. First, the reported information on this account is not being kept accurate or up-to-date by XXXXXXXX XXXX, especially given that the debt has been transferred to a third-party collector. Once XXXX  charged off the account and sold the debt ( likely to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is now reporting a collection for this same {$600.00} )XXXX XXXX should have updated the tradeline to reflect that transfer and then ceased updating it with derogatory information. The credit reports do show a XXXX balance, but they continue to list the account as a charge-off each month up until it was last reported. The presence of this account as a negative mark is duplicative, since the debt now also appears as a collection account under XXXX. It is unfair and misleading for both the original and collection accounts to coexist on my report for the same debt. Creditors viewing my report see two major derogatories ( a charge-off and a collection ) for what is essentially one financial obligation. This double whammy exaggerates the impact on my credit score and creditworthiness. I believe this runs counter to the FCRAs goal of fair and relevant credit reporting. Second, XXXXXXXX XXXX has failed to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of this accounts information, as required by law. I disputed the XXXX XXXX account with XXXX via a direct written dispute ( sent in XX/XX/XXXX ) and also through XXXX In my dispute, I pointed out that I do not believe XXXX has retained proper documentation for the account, such as original charge slips or a signed credit agreement, especially since the debt was sold. I also noted a discrepancy : the cards credit limit was only {$300.00}, yet XXXX allowed the balance to grow to {$600.00} by the time of charge-off ( implying significant fees or interest were added ). I asked XXXX to verify the accuracy of the balance and provide documentation of how that balance was derived. XXXX did not provide any substantive response or proof. They simply let the tradeline remain. Under the FCRA, if a consumer disputes an item, the furnisher ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove any information it can not verify as accurate files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX lack of response indicates that they did not verify the debts accuracy because they likely can not. The continued reporting of an unverified charge-off account is a violation of FCRA Section 623. It is unacceptable that this account remains, damaging my credit, when XXXX has not proven that the information ( amount owed, dates, etc. ) is correct and complete. Third, given that this account was charged off nearly four years ago, it is approaching the point where it would become obsolete negative information under the FCRAs 7-year rule. While it is not yet past the 7-year mark, I want to highlight that this accounts negative impact is diminishing any value in keeping it on record. The accounts Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, so it is scheduled to continue on record until XXXX. However, because the debt was sold and is being handled by another company, the XXXX entry is essentially static, historical data that serves little purpose except to punish me. XXXX has no ongoing relationship with me. Removing this tradeline now, as part of a goodwill gesture or due to the verification issues noted, would cause no harm to XXXX but would significantly help my credit profile reflect my current obligations more accurately ( since Im now dealing with the collection agency ). I believe the CFPB should consider that leaving duplicate negative entries is not in line with the spirit of fair credit reporting, which aims to report only what is necessary and correct. In summary, XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting of the charged-off XXXX XXXX account is neither accurate nor fair. They have not verified the debt, yet keep it on my file ; they have effectively double-reported the debt alongside a collection agency ; and the continued presence of this outdated negative item is doing undue harm. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to resolve these issues. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB have XXXXXXXX XXXX  * permanently delete the XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all credit bureaus. This deletion is justified on the grounds that the information is unverified/inaccurate and that its duplicative of the collection account. If XXXX believes the information is correct, I invite them to produce complete documentation ( original signed application, full payment history, accounting of the balance, etc. ) and prove it otherwise, the law says it should be removed. I also request that the CFPB ensure XXXX improves its processes for handling sold accounts to prevent consumer credit reports from being unnecessarily tarnished by redundant negative entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that the CFPBs intervention can help correct this issue and protect my rights under the FCRA","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T02:21:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13971583","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-10T02:14:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully <em>inform</em> creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively <em>results</em> in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX  ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation."]},"sort":[5.7513905,"13971583"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13970881","_score":5.737047,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Social Security number XXXX DOB : XXXXXXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit reports. This account ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was opened around XX/XX/XXXX, with a current reported balance of {$2000.00}. It is being reported as a collection on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion reports as of XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute the legitimacy and accuracy of this account and believe XXXX  reporting violates federal law. First, the balance being reported ( {$2000.00} ) is grossly inflated and inaccurate. My records indicate the original credit limit on the XXXX card was {$1400.00}, yet XXXX is reporting a much higher balance, likely due to added interest or fees. This inflated amount has never been validated with any documentation. Reporting a balance that exceeds the original debt without proof is misleading and constitutes a false representation of the debts character and amount ftc.gov. XXXX has failed to provide any breakdown or verification to justify this amount, despite my disputes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), information on a credit report must be accurate and verifiable, and any information that can not be verified must be deleted consumerfinance.gov files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX continued reporting of this unverified, inflated balance shows a blatant disregard for the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Second, I have never received proper validation of this debt from XXXX. I requested debt validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in writing ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), yet XXXX did not cease collection or provide the required verification. Instead, they persisted in reporting this account each month, which is illegal. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits a debt collector from continuing collection activities without first validating the debt upon request ftc.gov. XXXX failure to produce any evidence that I owe this debt, while continuing to report it as a derogatory item, is a direct violation of FDCPA and my consumer rights. This account is unverifiable in its current state XXXX has not proven that I am the legitimate debtor or that the amount is correct. Third, I want to note that I disputed this account with the credit bureaus, and it is marked as disputed on at least one bureau. However, XXXX failed to properly investigate and correct the errors. The account remains, with the same inflated balance and no indication of any proof. By verifying the account without actual documentation, XXXX and the bureaus have violated FCRA Section 611, which requires a reasonable investigation and removal of information that can not be verified. The FCRA also holds data furnishers like XXXX responsible under Section 623 to report only accurate information and to correct or delete information if it is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. XXXX  lack of response to my dispute and its continued reporting of suspect information demonstrate a willful neglect of these obligations. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection account that is inaccurate, unverified, and legally unenforceable. This harms me every day it remains on my credit file. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to investigate and enforce the law in this matter. XXXX should be compelled to provide proof of the debts validity and amount or, failing that, delete this account permanently from all consumer credit bureaus. Their current conduct reporting an unverified, inflated debt violates the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy and the FDCPAs prohibitions on false and unfair collection practices. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX to delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion credit reports immediately * * due to the aforementioned FCRA and FDCPA violations. Additionally, I request a formal investigation into XXXX collection and reporting activities, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to prevent this kind of consumer harm. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Disputed debt and FCRA/FDCPA violations To Whom It May Concern : I am filing an official complaint regarding another collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX This account was originally opened around XX/XX/XXXX and is tied to a XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). The current reported balance is {$600.00}, and it appears on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion credit reports as a collection account. I dispute this account in its entirety and assert that XXXX reporting and collection of this debt are rife with legal violations. First, this debt is unverified and of questionable ownership. I have no recollection of ever incurring a {$600.00} debt with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX has provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate that I am responsible for this account. I demanded validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX via written correspondence in early XXXX, as is my right under the FDCPA. To date, XXXX has failed to produce any validation no signed contract, no account statements, not even basic account records linking me to this debt. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt or requests validation, the collector must cease collection and verify the debt before taking further action ftc.gov. XXXX ignored this requirement. They continued reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting collection without ever mailing me the requested verification. This is an improper collection activity without debt validation, a clear violation of my FDCPA rights. Second, XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information is not verifiable or accurate. The FCRA requires that any information on a credit report be complete, accurate, and capable of being verified. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX can not verify the debt they have no proof of my liability yet they continue to report it as a valid collection. This account is effectively unverifiable, and by law it should not be on my credit report at all. I also believe the account details are incomplete. For instance, the credit reports do not clearly show the date of first delinquency or any itemization of the {$600.00} balance. Such omissions make it impossible to determine if the debt is within the allowable reporting period or if the amount includes unauthorized fees. In short, XXXX has not met its burden under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The presence of an unverified collection account is causing significant damage to my creditworthiness and is fundamentally unfair. Third, I previously disputed this collection with the credit bureaus ( XXXX  and TransUnion ) in an effort to have it investigated. XXXX responded to the bureaus investigations by allegedly verifying the debt, yet they provided me with no documentation or evidence during that process. It appears XXXX simply affirmed the debt as valid without conducting a reasonable investigation. This perfunctory verification violates FCRA Section 611, which obligates furnishers to investigate disputes thoroughly and delete information that can not be verified. Moreover, XXXX did not mark the account as disputed by consumer on all my credit reports, which it is required to do once I notified them of my dispute. Under FDCPA Section 807 ( 8 ), its a deceptive practice for a debt collector to report credit information that is known to be false, including failing to communicate that a debt is disputed ftc.gov. XXXX omission of the dispute notation further demonstrates their negligent and deceptive approach to credit reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect and report a debt that I do not recognize and which they have not validated. This is both unprofessional and unlawful. The account information is unverified, incomplete, and thus in violation of FCRAs accuracy standards and FDCPAs validation requirements. I respectfully request the CFPBs intervention to correct this situation. Requested Relief : I ask that the CFPB direct XXXX to immediately and permanently delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all credit bureaus * * since they have not demonstrated any legitimate basis for reporting it. Furthermore, I request that CFPB investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for their collection practices in this case, including their failure to validate the debt and their improper credit reporting. No consumer should be subjected to a collection entry that the collector can not even prove is real. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX  XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Dispute of inaccurate debt reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding a collection account handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), appearing on my credit reports. The account number is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( partial ), opened on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$460.00}. The original creditor is listed as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This account is reported on my TransUnion and XXXX  credit files as a collection account. I firmly dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of this debt and believe XXXX  reporting and collection actions are violating my consumer rights. First, the information XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The tradeline does not contain sufficient detail to verify the debt. For example, the balance of {$460.00} is not explained or itemized I have not been provided any statement showing how this amount was calculated or if it includes any interest or fees post-charge-off. I am concerned that the status or balance may be incorrect, yet XXXX has not corrected it. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, the XXXX account information falls into those categories. I have never seen a single piece of evidence ( such as a signed agreement or billing statements from XXXX XXXX ) that definitively proves this {$460.00} debt is mine and reported correctly. Without such verification, the continued presence of this collection on my credit report is unjustified. It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per federal law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a clear validation notice by mail. To resolve my doubts, I mailed a debt validation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, asking for proof that I owe this debt ( e.g. the original account agreement and an account statement ). XXXX did not respond with any validation documents. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), a debt collector must provide verification of the debt upon a consumers request and must cease collection efforts until that verification is provided ftc.gov. PRAs silence and continued reporting indicate a disregard for this law. They continued to report the collection account to the credit bureaus without ever substantiating the debt when asked an improper collection practice. Furthermore, since I disputed the debt, any continued reporting should have been marked as disputed. XXXX failed to mark the account as disputed on my credit report, which is a deceptive practice under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ftc.gov. This omission makes it look as if I accept the debt, which is false and damaging. Third, I want to highlight that the timeline and handling of this account raise concerns under the CFPBs own debt collection rules. The collection was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, but I only noticed it on my credit reports later. If XXXX reported this debt to the bureaus before properly contacting me, that would violate the CFPBs Regulation F. Debt collectors must notify a consumer about a debt and wait a reasonable period ( usually 14 days ) before reporting to credit bureaus consumerfinance.gov. In my case, I have no record of XXXX speaking with me or sending a letter that I actually received prior to seeing the item on my reports. If they sent a notice, I did not get it, and they apparently did not confirm receipt before reporting. Reporting a collection without ensuring I was notified is an unfair practice and contravenes the spirit of the CFPBs guidelines and the FDCPAs requirements for fair notification. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that lacks verification and contains possible inaccuracies. XXXX has not validated the debt nor ensured the information is correct or fairly presented. This situation has caused significant distress, as my credit score is being impacted by an entry that I can not even confirm as legitimate. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to put an end to this. Requested Action : I urge the CFPB to compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to remove the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all of my credit reports * * due to their failure to verify its accuracy and their failure to adhere to federal collection laws. At minimum, XXXX should be required to provide full validation of the debt ( original contract, account statements, proof of ownership of the debt, etc. ) if they wish to continue reporting it. If they can not promptly provide irrefutable proof, the only lawful and fair outcome is to delete this collection account entirely. I also ask that CFPB review XXXX conduct in this case for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA, and take appropriate enforcement action if violations are found. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct # XXXX ) Charged-off account reporting dispute To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a complaint against XXXX XXXX  regarding the reporting of a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ( account number ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX ) on my credit reports. This account was opened in or around XX/XX/XXXX and was charged off around late XXXX   with an original charge-off balance of approximately {$2000.00}. Currently, the credit bureaus list the account as Closed Charged Off with a {$0.00} balance ( reflecting that the debt was sold or transferred ). It appears on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion reports as a negative item. I believe XXXX continued reporting of this account is incomplete, misleading, and in violation of the FCRA, and I am requesting that it be removed. First, the information XXXX XXXX  is reporting about this account is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, thereby violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After the charge-off, XXXX sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as evidenced by a XXXX collection entry for this same account ). However, XXXX tradeline on my credit report does not clearly indicate the transfer or the fact that I no longer owe any balance to XXXX. The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully inform creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively results in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation. While technically original creditors and collectors can both report, the combination of these entries is painting an excessively negative picture that is not wholly accurate. XXXX entry still shows the debt as a serious derogatory mark even though XXXX has no remaining interest in it. I contend that this is not maximum possible accuracy as required by the FCRA. Second, the account information is not verifiable or up-to-date, which means it should be deleted. I have disputed this account directly with XXXX XXXX  ( in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and through the credit bureaus, on the grounds that XXXX no longer possesses the account ( having sold it ) and thus can not verify its details. In response, XXXX did not provide any substantive verification. They have not produced any original account documents or clarifications ; the credit bureaus simply left the charge-off in place. The FCRA states that if information is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, that information must be corrected or removed from the credit report files.consumerfinance.gov. Given that XXXX XXXX  no longer owns the debt, it is doubtful they retained the full documentation or incentive to investigate thoroughly. The lack of response to my dispute indicates that the accuracy of this tradeline can not be confirmed. Additionally, certain details on the account may be outdated. The Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Ive noticed some reports list a later major delinquency reported date ( possibly due to the charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX ). I want to ensure XXXX reported the true original delinquency date to the bureaus. If they failed to do so, that is an FCRA violation as well. ( Any re-aging of the delinquency date to keep the account on reports longer would be illegal ). In summary, XXXX charge-off entry is unverified and outdated information that should no longer be on my reports. Third, it is fundamentally unfair and against the intent of the FCRAs obsolescence rules for this charged-off account to linger on my credit file given the circumstances. The FCRA generally limits negative information to a 7-year reporting period files.consumerfinance.gov. While this account is about 4 years old since the delinquency ( so still within the timeframe ), I want to emphasize that I am suffering ongoing harm from an account that has been resolved in the sense that XXXX  closed it and sold it off. XXXX XXXX  washed its hands of this debt when it sold it, yet I continue to be punished by the mark on my credit. The spirit of the law is to allow consumers to move on after a reasonable period. In this case, removal of the XXXX tradeline would not cause XXXX any loss ( they no longer have stake in the debt ) but would greatly help my credit rebuild. I respectfully assert that leaving this mark through XXXX does not serve a fair purpose it is simply punitive. Moreover, as mentioned, the existence of the XXXX XXXX  for the same account means the debts impact is duplicative. It is neither accurate nor fair for both to remain if one can be removed. For these reasons, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to address XXXX XXXX  reporting of the XXXX account. XXXX has not provided verification of the debts accuracy and has left an incomplete, duplicative derogatory item on my reports. This does not comply with FCRA requirements for accuracy and verifiability. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB instruct XXXX XXXX  to * permanently delete the XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all consumer credit reporting agencies. This deletion is warranted due to the lack of verification and the fact that the debt has been transferred. I also request that CFPB ensure XXXX  updates any of its reporting practices so that when debts are sold, the trade lines are either not reported as negatives or are clearly notated and removed once the transferee is reporting. At a minimum, if outright deletion is not immediately ordered, XXXX should mark the account as disputed and investigate my claims thoroughly. However, given the circumstances, I firmly believe deletion is the proper and just outcome. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX credit card ( Acct # XXXX ) Dispute of charged-off account reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issued by XXXX XXXX  ( account number ending in XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported on my credit reports. This account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and charged off in XXXX. The charge-off amount was {$600.00}, and the account is currently listed on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion reports as a closed, charged-off account with a {$0.00} balance ( indicating the debt was sold or assigned to a collection agency ). I assert that XXXX  reporting of this account is inaccurate and unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and I am seeking the CFPBs assistance to have this matter corrected through deletion of the tradeline. First, the reported information on this account is not being kept accurate or up-to-date by XXXX XXXX, especially given that the debt has been transferred to a third-party collector. Once XXXX  charged off the account and sold the debt ( likely to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is now reporting a collection for this same {$600.00} ), XXXX  should have updated the tradeline to reflect that transfer and then ceased updating it with derogatory information. The credit reports do show a XXXX balance, but they continue to list the account as a charge-off each month up until it was last reported. The presence of this account as a negative mark is duplicative, since the debt now also appears as a collection account under XXXX. It is unfair and misleading for both the original and collection accounts to coexist on my report for the same debt. Creditors viewing my report see two major derogatories ( a charge-off and a collection ) for what is essentially one financial obligation. This double whammy exaggerates the impact on my credit score and creditworthiness. I believe this runs counter to the FCRAs goal of fair and relevant credit reporting. Second, XXXX XXXX  has failed to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of this accounts information, as required by law. I disputed the XXXX XXXX account with XXXX  via a direct written dispute ( sent in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and also through XXXX. In my dispute, I pointed out that I do not believe XXXX has retained proper documentation for the account, such as original charge slips or a signed credit agreement, especially since the debt was sold. I also noted a discrepancy : the cards credit limit was only {$300.00}, yet XXXX allowed the balance to grow to {$600.00} by the time of charge-off ( implying significant fees or interest were added ). I asked XXXX to verify the accuracy of the balance and provide documentation of how that balance was derived. XXXX did not provide any substantive response or proof. They simply let the tradeline remain. Under the FCRA, if a consumer disputes an item, the furnisher ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove any information it can not verify as accurate files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX  lack of response indicates that they did not verify the debts accuracy because they likely can not. The continued reporting of an unverified charge-off account is a violation of FCRA Section 623. It is unacceptable that this account remains, damaging my credit, when XXXX has not proven that the information ( amount owed, dates, etc. ) is correct and complete. Third, given that this account was charged off nearly four years ago, it is approaching the point where it would become obsolete negative information under the FCRAs 7-year rule. While it is not yet past the 7-year mark, I want to highlight that this accounts negative impact is diminishing any value in keeping it on record. The accounts Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, so it is scheduled to continue on record until XXXX. However, because the debt was sold and is being handled by another company, the XXXX entry is essentially static, historical data that serves little purpose except to punish me. XXXX  has no ongoing relationship with me. Removing this tradeline now, as part of a goodwill gesture or due to the verification issues noted, would cause no harm to XXXX but would significantly help my credit profile reflect my current obligations more accurately ( since Im now dealing with the collection agency ). I believe the CFPB should consider that leaving duplicate negative entries is not in line with the spirit of fair credit reporting, which aims to report only what is necessary and correct. In summary, XXXX XXXX  reporting of the charged-off XXXX XXXX account is neither accurate nor fair. They have not verified the debt, yet keep it on my file ; they have effectively double-reported the debt alongside a collection agency ; and the continued presence of this outdated negative item is doing undue harm. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to resolve these issues. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB have XXXX XXXX  * permanently delete the XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all credit bureaus. This deletion is justified on the grounds that the information is unverified/inaccurate and that its duplicative of the collection account. If XXXX believes the information is correct, I invite them to produce complete documentation ( original signed application, full payment history, accounting of the balance, etc. ) and prove it otherwise, the law says it should be removed. I also request that the CFPB ensure XXXX improves its processes for handling sold accounts to prevent consumer credit reports from being unnecessarily tarnished by redundant negative entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that the CFPBs intervention can help correct this issue and protect my rights under the FCRA","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T02:28:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13970881","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-10T02:21:34.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully <em>inform</em> creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively <em>results</em> in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation."]},"sort":[5.737047,"13970881"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13970993","_score":5.73012,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Social Security number XXXXXXXX  DOB : XXXXXXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Disputed credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit reports. This account ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was opened around XX/XX/XXXX, with a current reported balance of {$2000.00}. It is being reported as a collection on my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  reports as of XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute the legitimacy and accuracy of this account and believe XXXX reporting violates federal law. First, the balance being reported ( {$2000.00} ) is grossly inflated and inaccurate. My records indicate the original credit limit on the XXXX card was {$1400.00}, yet XXXX is reporting a much higher balance, likely due to added interest or fees. This inflated amount has never been validated with any documentation. Reporting a balance that exceeds the original debt without proof is misleading and constitutes a false representation of the debts character and amount ftc.gov. XXXX has failed to provide any breakdown or verification to justify this amount, despite my disputes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), information on a credit report must be accurate and verifiable, and any information that can not be verified must be deleted consumerfinance.gov files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX continued reporting of this unverified, inflated balance shows a blatant disregard for the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Second, I have never received proper validation of this debt from XXXX. I requested debt validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in writing ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), yet XXXX did not cease collection or provide the required verification. Instead, they persisted in reporting this account each month, which is illegal. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits a debt collector from continuing collection activities without first validating the debt upon request ftc.gov. XXXX failure to produce any evidence that I owe this debt, while continuing to report it as a derogatory item, is a direct violation of FDCPA and my consumer rights. This account is unverifiable in its current state XXXX has not proven that I am the legitimate debtor or that the amount is correct. Third, I want to note that I disputed this account with the credit bureaus, and it is marked as disputed on at least one bureau. However, XXXX failed to properly investigate and correct the errors. The account remains, with the same inflated balance and no indication of any proof. By verifying the account without actual documentation, XXXX and the bureaus have violated FCRA Section 611, which requires a reasonable investigation and removal of information that can not be verified. The FCRA also holds data furnishers like XXXX responsible under Section 623 to report only accurate information and to correct or delete information if it is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. XXXX  lack of response to my dispute and its continued reporting of suspect information demonstrate a willful neglect of these obligations. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection account that is inaccurate, unverified, and legally unenforceable. This harms me every day it remains on my credit file. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to investigate and enforce the law in this matter. XXXX should be compelled to provide proof of the debts validity and amount or, failing that, delete this account permanently from all consumer credit bureaus. Their current conduct reporting an unverified, inflated debt violates the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy and the FDCPAs prohibitions on false and unfair collection practices. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX to delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  credit reports immediately * * due to the aforementioned FCRA and FDCPA violations. Additionally, I request a formal investigation into XXXX collection and reporting activities, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to prevent this kind of consumer harm. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Disputed debt and FCRA/FDCPA violations To Whom It May Concern : I am filing an official complaint regarding another collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX This account was originally opened around XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and is tied to a XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( account number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The current reported balance is {$600.00}, and it appears on my XXXX, Experian, and XXXX  credit reports as a collection account. I dispute this account in its entirety and assert that XXXX reporting and collection of this debt are rife with legal violations. First, this debt is unverified and of questionable ownership. I have no recollection of ever incurring a {$600.00} debt with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX has provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate that I am responsible for this account. I demanded validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX via written correspondence in early XXXX, as is my right under the FDCPA. To date, XXXX has failed to produce any validation no signed contract, no account statements, not even basic account records linking me to this debt. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt or requests validation, the collector must cease collection and verify the debt before taking further action ftc.gov. XXXX ignored this requirement. They continued reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting collection without ever mailing me the requested verification. This is an improper collection activity without debt validation, a clear violation of my FDCPA rights. Second, XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information is not verifiable or accurate. The FCRA requires that any information on a credit report be complete, accurate, and capable of being verified. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX can not verify the debt they have no proof of my liability yet they continue to report it as a valid collection. This account is effectively unverifiable, and by law it should not be on my credit report at all. I also believe the account details are incomplete. For instance, the credit reports do not clearly show the date of first delinquency or any itemization of the {$600.00} balance. Such omissions make it impossible to determine if the debt is within the allowable reporting period or if the amount includes unauthorized fees. In short, XXXX has not met its burden under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The presence of an unverified collection account is causing significant damage to my creditworthiness and is fundamentally unfair. Third, I previously disputed this collection with the credit bureaus ( Experian and XXXX  ) in an effort to have it investigated. XXXX responded to the bureaus investigations by allegedly verifying the debt, yet they provided me with no documentation or evidence during that process. It appears XXXX simply affirmed the debt as valid without conducting a reasonable investigation. This perfunctory verification violates FCRA Section 611, which obligates furnishers to investigate disputes thoroughly and delete information that can not be verified. Moreover, XXXX did not mark the account as disputed by consumer on all my credit reports, which it is required to do once I notified them of my dispute. Under FDCPA Section 807 ( 8 ), its a deceptive practice for a debt collector to report credit information that is known to be false, including failing to communicate that a debt is disputed ftc.gov. XXXX  omission of the dispute notation further demonstrates their negligent and deceptive approach to credit reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect and report a debt that I do not recognize and which they have not validated. This is both unprofessional and unlawful. The account information is unverified, incomplete, and thus in violation of FCRAs accuracy standards and FDCPAs validation requirements. I respectfully request the CFPBs intervention to correct this situation. Requested Relief : I ask that the CFPB direct XXXX to immediately and permanently delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all credit bureaus * * since they have not demonstrated any legitimate basis for reporting it. Furthermore, I request that CFPB investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for their collection practices in this case, including their failure to validate the debt and their improper credit reporting. No consumer should be subjected to a collection entry that the collector can not even prove is real. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX  XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Dispute of inaccurate debt reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding a collection account handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), appearing on my credit reports. The account number is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( partial ), opened on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$460.00}. The original creditor is listed as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This account is reported on my XXXX  and Experian credit files as a collection account. I firmly dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of this debt and believe XXXX  reporting and collection actions are violating my consumer rights. First, the information XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The tradeline does not contain sufficient detail to verify the debt. For example, the balance of {$460.00} is not explained or itemized I have not been provided any statement showing how this amount was calculated or if it includes any interest or fees post-charge-off. I am concerned that the status or balance may be incorrect, yet XXXX has not corrected it. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, the XXXX account information falls into those categories. I have never seen a single piece of evidence ( such as a signed agreement or billing statements from XXXX XXXX ) that definitively proves this {$460.00} debt is mine and reported correctly. Without such verification, the continued presence of this collection on my credit report is unjustified. It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per federal law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a clear validation notice by mail. To resolve my doubts, I mailed a debt validation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, asking for proof that I owe this debt ( e.g. the original account agreement and an account statement ). XXXX did not respond with any validation documents. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), a debt collector must provide verification of the debt upon a consumers request and must cease collection efforts until that verification is provided ftc.gov. XXXX  silence and continued reporting indicate a disregard for this law. They continued to report the collection account to the credit bureaus without ever substantiating the debt when asked an improper collection practice. Furthermore, since I disputed the debt, any continued reporting should have been marked as disputed. XXXX failed to mark the account as disputed on my credit report, which is a deceptive practice under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ftc.gov. This omission makes it look as if I accept the debt, which is false and damaging. Third, I want to highlight that the timeline and handling of this account raise concerns under the CFPBs own debt collection rules. The collection was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, but I only noticed it on my credit reports later. If XXXX reported this debt to the bureaus before properly contacting me, that would violate the CFPBs Regulation F. Debt collectors must notify a consumer about a debt and wait a reasonable period ( usually 14 days ) before reporting to credit bureaus consumerfinance.gov. In my case, I have no record of XXXX speaking with me or sending a letter that I actually received prior to seeing the item on my reports. If they sent a notice, I did not get it, and they apparently did not confirm receipt before reporting. Reporting a collection without ensuring I was notified is an unfair practice and contravenes the spirit of the CFPBs guidelines and the FDCPAs requirements for fair notification. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that lacks verification and contains possible inaccuracies. XXXX has not validated the debt nor ensured the information is correct or fairly presented. This situation has caused significant distress, as my credit score is being impacted by an entry that I can not even confirm as legitimate. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to put an end to this. Requested Action : I urge the CFPB to compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to remove the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all of my credit reports * * due to their failure to verify its accuracy and their failure to adhere to federal collection laws. At minimum, XXXX should be required to provide full validation of the debt ( original contract, account statements, proof of ownership of the debt, etc. ) if they wish to continue reporting it. If they can not promptly provide irrefutable proof, the only lawful and fair outcome is to delete this collection account entirely. I also ask that CFPB review XXXX conduct in this case for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA, and take appropriate enforcement action if violations are found. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX credit card ( Acct # XXXX ) Charged-off account reporting dispute To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a complaint against XXXX XXXX  regarding the reporting of a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ( account number ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX ) on my credit reports. This account was opened in or around XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and was charged off around late XXXX  with an original charge-off balance of approximately {$2000.00}. Currently, the credit bureaus list the account as Closed Charged Off with a {$0.00} balance ( reflecting that the debt was sold or transferred ). It appears on my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  reports as a negative item. I believe XXXX continued reporting of this account is incomplete, misleading, and in violation of the FCRA, and I am requesting that it be removed. First, the information XXXX XXXX  is reporting about this account is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, thereby violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After the charge-off, XXXX sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX , as evidenced by a XXXX collection entry for this same account ). However, XXXX tradeline on my credit report does not clearly indicate the transfer or the fact that I no longer owe any balance to XXXX. The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully inform creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively results in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation. While technically original creditors and collectors can both report, the combination of these entries is painting an excessively negative picture that is not wholly accurate. XXXX entry still shows the debt as a serious derogatory mark even though XXXX has no remaining interest in it. I contend that this is not maximum possible accuracy as required by the FCRA. Second, the account information is not verifiable or up-to-date, which means it should be deleted. I have disputed this account directly with XXXX XXXX  ( in XX/XX/XXXX ) and through the credit bureaus, on the grounds that XXXX no longer possesses the account ( having sold it ) and thus can not verify its details. In response, XXXX did not provide any substantive verification. They have not produced any original account documents or clarifications ; the credit bureaus simply left the charge-off in place. The FCRA states that if information is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, that information must be corrected or removed from the credit report files.consumerfinance.gov. Given that XXXX XXXX  no longer owns the debt, it is doubtful they retained the full documentation or incentive to investigate thoroughly. The lack of response to my dispute indicates that the accuracy of this tradeline can not be confirmed. Additionally, certain details on the account may be outdated. The Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Ive noticed some reports list a later major delinquency reported date ( possibly due to the charge-off in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ). I want to ensure XXXX reported the true original delinquency date to the bureaus. If they failed to do so, that is an FCRA violation as well. ( Any re-aging of the delinquency date to keep the account on reports longer would be illegal ). In summary, XXXX charge-off entry is unverified and outdated information that should no longer be on my reports. Third, it is fundamentally unfair and against the intent of the FCRAs obsolescence rules for this charged-off account to linger on my credit file given the circumstances. The FCRA generally limits negative information to a 7-year reporting period files.consumerfinance.gov. While this account is about 4 years old since the delinquency ( so still within the timeframe ), I want to emphasize that I am suffering ongoing harm from an account that has been resolved in the sense that XXXX closed it and sold it off. XXXX XXXX  washed its hands of this debt when it sold it, yet I continue to be punished by the mark on my credit. The spirit of the law is to allow consumers to move on after a reasonable period. In this case, removal of the XXXX tradeline would not cause XXXX any loss ( they no longer have stake in the debt ) but would greatly help my credit rebuild. I respectfully assert that leaving this mark through XXXX does not serve a fair purpose it is simply punitive. Moreover, as mentioned, the existence of the XXXX XXXX  for the same account means the debts impact is duplicative. It is neither accurate nor fair for both to remain if one can be removed. For these reasons, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to address XXXX XXXX  reporting of the XXXX account. XXXX  has not provided verification of the debts accuracy and has left an incomplete, duplicative derogatory item on my reports. This does not comply with FCRA requirements for accuracy and verifiability. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB instruct XXXX XXXX  to * permanently delete the XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all consumer credit reporting agencies. This deletion is warranted due to the lack of verification and the fact that the debt has been transferred. I also request that CFPB ensure XXXX  updates any of its reporting practices so that when debts are sold, the trade lines are either not reported as negatives or are clearly notated and removed once the transferee is reporting. At a minimum, if outright deletion is not immediately ordered, XXXX should mark the account as disputed and investigate my claims thoroughly. However, given the circumstances, I firmly believe deletion is the proper and just outcome. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Acct # XXXX ) Dispute of charged-off account reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  issued by XXXX XXXX  ( account number ending in XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported on my credit reports. This account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and charged off in XXXX. The charge-off amount was {$600.00}, and the account is currently listed on my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  reports as a closed, charged-off account with a {$0.00} balance ( indicating the debt was sold or assigned to a collection agency ). I assert that XXXX  reporting of this account is inaccurate and unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and I am seeking the CFPBs assistance to have this matter corrected through deletion of the tradeline. First, the reported information on this account is not being kept accurate or up-to-date by XXXX XXXX, especially given that the debt has been transferred to a third-party collector. Once XXXX  charged off the account and sold the debt ( likely to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is now reporting a collection for this same {$600.00} ), XXXX  should have updated the tradeline to reflect that transfer and then ceased updating it with derogatory information. The credit reports do show a XXXX balance, but they continue to list the account as a charge-off each month up until it was last reported. The presence of this account as a negative mark is duplicative, since the debt now also appears as a collection account under XXXX. It is unfair and misleading for both the original and collection accounts to coexist on my report for the same debt. Creditors viewing my report see two major derogatories ( a charge-off and a collection ) for what is essentially one financial obligation. This double whammy exaggerates the impact on my credit score and creditworthiness. I believe this runs counter to the FCRAs goal of fair and relevant credit reporting. Second, XXXX XXXX  has failed to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of this accounts information, as required by law. I disputed the XXXX XXXX account with XXXX  via a direct written dispute ( sent in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and also through Experian. In my dispute, I pointed out that I do not believe XXXX has retained proper documentation for the account, such as original charge slips or a signed credit agreement, especially since the debt was sold. I also noted a discrepancy : the cards credit limit was only {$300.00}, yet XXXX allowed the balance to grow to {$600.00} by the time of charge-off ( implying significant fees or interest were added ). I asked XXXX to verify the accuracy of the balance and provide documentation of how that balance was derived. XXXX did not provide any substantive response or proof. They simply let the tradeline remain. Under the FCRA, if a consumer disputes an item, the furnisher ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove any information it can not verify as accurate files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX  lack of response indicates that they did not verify the debts accuracy because they likely can not. The continued reporting of an unverified charge-off account is a violation of FCRA Section 623. It is unacceptable that this account remains, damaging my credit, when XXXX has not proven that the information ( amount owed, dates, etc. ) is correct and complete. Third, given that this account was charged off nearly four years ago, it is approaching the point where it would become obsolete negative information under the FCRAs 7-year rule. While it is not yet past the 7-year mark, I want to highlight that this accounts negative impact is diminishing any value in keeping it on record. The accounts Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, so it is scheduled to continue on record until XXXX. However, because the debt was sold and is being handled by another company, the XXXX entry is essentially static, historical data that serves little purpose except to punish me. XXXX  has no ongoing relationship with me. Removing this tradeline now, as part of a goodwill gesture or due to the verification issues noted, would cause no harm to XXXX but would significantly help my credit profile reflect my current obligations more accurately ( since Im now dealing with the collection agency ). I believe the CFPB should consider that leaving duplicate negative entries is not in line with the spirit of fair credit reporting, which aims to report only what is necessary and correct. In summary, XXXX XXXX  reporting of the charged-off XXXX XXXX account is neither accurate nor fair. They have not verified the debt, yet keep it on my file ; they have effectively double-reported the debt alongside a collection agency ; and the continued presence of this outdated negative item is doing undue harm. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to resolve these issues. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB have XXXX XXXX  * permanently delete the XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all credit bureaus. This deletion is justified on the grounds that the information is unverified/inaccurate and that its duplicative of the collection account. If XXXX believes the information is correct, I invite them to produce complete documentation ( original signed application, full payment history, accounting of the balance, etc. ) and prove it otherwise, the law says it should be removed. I also request that the CFPB ensure XXXX improves its processes for handling sold accounts to prevent consumer credit reports from being unnecessarily tarnished by redundant negative entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that the CFPBs intervention can help correct this issue and protect my rights under the FCRA. \n\nFinally, experian has provided the wrong last 4 of my SS. Are all these items mine if they have the last 4 wrong of my social security","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T02:14:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13970993","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-10T01:45:37.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully <em>inform</em> creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively <em>results</em> in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation."]},"sort":[5.73012,"13970993"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4982875","_score":5.279399,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/2021 To : 5/3rd Bank Office of the President XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Permissions granted I give ( CFPB ) full autonomy to forward a redacted copy ( minus all proper names ) of this redacted letter and redacted case on file to any all claimants that would be assessing damages, or prosecuting criminals against or at 5/3rd bank respectively. \n\nOn this note, if at any time within the next statutory 7-year period, a claimant or regulating body could find this testimony, relevant or useful to establish a pattern of intentionally unaddressed security issues, of any kind, at 5/3rd Bank, then I will be happy to testify on their behalf and without compensation. \n\nMy objective with this complaint It is objective to bring to the proper authorities within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a complete narrative of my experience with 5/3rd bank. I will try to capture the entire experience here in this comprehensive narrative so that any additional violations that I may fail to address can be revealed to investigators who could take corrective action. It is my feeling that there is a host of backend server and security related non-compliancy issues stemming from 5/3rd banks corporate oversight and management. \n\nWhere there is smoke.. \nI can only relay the events as they occurred and happened to me so as to help those people within the federal government who might recognize a dangerous pattern of non-compliance that could jeopardize account security and access of funds of all of 5/3rds trusting customers and not just myself. \nThis final narrative of events regarding compromised internal security measures that ultimately allowed actions to be conducted on my ATM debit card and my associated checking account that are inconsistent with financial account security protocols set f orth by federal regulations. There is evidence of cross-departmental involvement that stems from the sheer absence of automatic alerts and notifications that should have arrived to me in some way, from those various departments upon my cards deactivation, but did not.\n\nSection 47-4-402 of the Uniform Commercial Per section 47-4-402 of the Tennessee adoption of the federal Uniform Commercial Code, language has originally been intended for valid written physical paper checks that have been mistakenly or willfully dishonored by financial institutions that should have paid funds on those cashed checks but instead denied paying funds that were readily available. \n\nRelevant parts of this section that could easily bed subject to reinterpretation go as follows : 47-4-402 ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a payor bank wrongfully dishonors an item if it dishonors an item that is properly payable, but a bank may dishonor an item that would create an overdraft unless it has agreed to pay the overdraft. \n\n( b ) A payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item. Liability is limited to actual damages proved and may include damages for an arrest or prosecution of the customer or other consequential damages. Whether any consequential damages are proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor is a question of fact to be determined in each case. \n\nRelevant case law XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX My experience with 5/3rd bank ( chronologically ) : Supporting arguments for grounds for federally required independent Information Technology Compliance Audit at 5/3rd bank . \n\ni. Experienced chronic password username retrieval issues with the mobile application Apparently 5/3 had been having a chronic, ongoing, malfunctioning, backend server problem with its User Id retrieval and password reset process. I experienced this issue from the start of my account. \n\nWhen trying to retrieve my user Id, this malfunctioning backend system software would inform me that it had successfully found my user ID, after filling out a lengthy form, and that I just needed to log in with that user Id, that I dont have yet, to retrieve it. This ridiculous backend system error never was corrected. \n\nAfter 3 attempts to retrieve the User Id Wednesday night on my phone, it then either silently frozen the checking account, or locked the card and froze the account from any and all subsequent usability. Nevertheless, no notice was ever sent to me when it did this. In fact, I would find out the hard way, at midnight on the following Wednesday night ( XX/XX/2021 ) when I was stranded at a XXXX XXXX  rental lot while trying to load my locked 5/3rd bank ATM card into the XXXX and XXXX apps to get a ride home, but could not. \n\n\n\nii. Experienced serious backend meta data Zip Code issues 5/3rd bank also maybe has backend meta data inconsistencies associated with its account holders profile data and associated ATM cards. As I kept trying to get an XXXX and XXXX ride home from the XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX dealership, Wednesday night at XXXX, about 5 weeks ago, both XXXX and XXXX XXXX were unable to load my 5/3rd card due to inability to accept my zip code of XXXX that has been on file with my account since opening around XXXX. \n\n\n\niii. Experience lack of customer support in a situation that 5/3rd bank deliberately caused There was no reliable night or weekend phone support at all to call and resolve this. Could not reach any support the night that my card became locked. \n\n\n\n\nThe following 1, 2 and 3 events by themselves do not constitute malfeasance or even cause for inquiry, they simply run off customers. Coupled with next mentioned events though they are beginnings of an in-series blockchain of evidence that validates a burden of proof of corporate-wide, non-compliance with federal safety regulations pertaining financial security measures that all financial institutions must have in place, and continuously comply with.. \n\n[ Event 1 ] : Was never contacted before or after the initial card lock My card is locked sometime late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning with no notice given ( XX/XX/2021 ). 5/3rd also fails to communicate to the affected ( me in this case ) of this automated locking action and leaves me stranded and unable to access direly needed funds to get home. In my case, I was at a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX dealership at midnight with no way to pay for a XXXX or XXXX driver. I could not load either a frozen card or a card whose zip code has been miscoded on 5/3rd bank 's poorly maintained backend user account systems. \n\nSo by no fault of my own, at this point, I have a no-notice lock placed on my card due to either : A ) The atm card being rendered unusable because of internal backend server issues that 5/3rd bank has created with my zip code, or..\n\nB ) rendered unusable because 5/3rd bank has locked me out due to all the attempts to access my account and retrieve my User Id with 5/3rd bank 's broken user-id and pw retrieval system or..\n\nC ) a combination of Both A ) and B ) at the same time because of 5/3rds general big- bloated-bank culture of visibly observable lax-ness everywhere throughout the entire customer experience.\n\n[ Event 2 ] : Branch manager disconnects our phone call deliberately leaving my locked debit card in locke\nd status after previously unlocking my online account, retrieving the username, and discussing the issue of not being contacted prior to, during, or after the lock ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The following day ( Friday ), I called into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tennessee branch to have a discussion with branch manager XXXX XXXX about being locked out of my account online and about the ATM card that would not work at the XXXX dealership XXXX which I could only concur at that time were one and the same. We finally unlock the account and retrieved my username that the broken username retrieval process in the 5/3rd application could not do. Then after finally logging back in to see my funds, we then began to discuss the inconvenience that the locked ATM card had caused me. Branch manager XXXX, tells me that 3 illegal attempts that had caused the lock. He then tells me he doesn't know why I was not contacted when my card was locked and doesn't have a means for me to talk to any individuals anywhere at the bank to ascertain what specifically prompted the hold on the card, and most importantly why I was never notified when the hold was placed. \n\nRecapping branch manager XXXX XXXX then hangs up the phone abruptly. His disconnection happens after we have : A ) just unlocked my online account and finally retrieved the user Id that the password retrieval process was unable to do. \nAnd. \n\nB ) Then had a 10-minute discussion about the locked ATM card, wherein I have pleaded with him tell me why I can not be at least transferred to someone to give me more insight as to what specifically prompted the lock on my card. \n\nAt this point, Im under the impression, that because we have finally that he has at least gone ahead and unlocked the ATM card as well, but he has deliberately not. \n\nI HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MY CARD IS STILL IN A LOCKED STATUS. \n\nI DO HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THE CARD IS UNLOCKED BECAUSE a. WE RETRIEVED A USERNAME, b. UNLOCKED MY ONLINE ACCOUNT, c. JUST TALKED ABOUT DISCUSSING GETTING TO SOMEONE INTERNALLY at 5/3rd TO FIND OUT WHY I WAS NOT NOTIFIED ABOUT IT FOR 10 MINUTES.\n\nAnd it is at this point, after discussing this on the phone for 10 minutes, that he chooses to just disconnect the call. Branch manager XXXX XXXX never calls me back to inform me that I still need to unlock my card, nor does he fulfill his duties as Manager to unlock the card by : A ) either filling out ticket to initialize the process that would reach out to notify relevant parties to do so, if he can not unlock the card himself, Or..\n\nB ) just unlock the card himself from his workstation while the screen on his computer is still indicating my cards locked status. \n\nHe rather disconnects the call, goes about his marry way as a counterproductive, problem causer, who is supposed to be resolving issues like these, but deliberately does not. \n\n[ Event 3 ] : My card then is mysteriously deactivated on the Friday night of ( XX/XX/2021 ) after having discussed its locked status with XXXX branch manager XXXX XXXX earlier that day. \n\nThat night, I go out to celebrate my new job. \n\nI had just recovered from a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAnd just returned a rented moving truck and moved into an apartment in XXXX with almost no energy while still recovering. \n\nHad then become stranded at a XXXX dealership when I returned the truck, and was unable to unlock the defective 5/3rd ATM card because by bank had no night time customer service to unlock the card. \n\nB ) Had even called into the branch the next day though and seemingly resolved the issue, and thought that I did.\n\nWas even disconnected during the phone call by that branch manager, but at least I was able to get back into my account and was now under the assumption that all the issues were resolved after discussing them with that branch manager for 10 minutes.\n\nThen went to a restaurant with some family. Carrying now my seemingly unlocked ATM 5/3rd card, as an only means of payment for the dining experience. Ran up a sizable tab. Then as we are getting finished with dinner, the waiter comes back to tell me that he tried to run my card, but that it has been unfortunately \" declined 3 times in a row ''. I have turn to my invited guests to pay for the entire dinner. \n\nNext morning, I am at the XXXX XXXX XXXX branch, and I'm there 30 minutes early! I'm the first one in the building when door opens! My focus is to find out why my card is still in locked status, just after I have had a lengthy discussion with the branch manager, Mr. branch manager XXXX XXXX a day before. I decide not to talk to branch manager XXXX XXXX first, instead I want to gather intel on this continuing situation, so I go to another associate with some hopes of maybe also straightening all this out but only after I got a full explanation. And I am expecting to have a conversation about compensation for my inconvenience. \n\nShe now tells me that my card is not just locked, but that somehow it has now been deactivated. \n\nIt takes 20 minutes and multiple demands for me to speak to the general manager, who I was beginning to suspect was most likely responsible for this latest surprise. When I am finally invited into his office to get my answers he admits to me ( and others standing there ), that he actually did disconnect the phone the day before when we spoke about the locked card and did so knowing full well that my ATM debit card was still in a locked status. \n\nHe even admits and acknowledges that our discussion had been at that time about my dissatisfaction with : A ) my ATM card becoming locked and its associated inconvenience, B ) not being notified beforehand, or at least shortly thereafter when my ATM card was locked, C ) and also, with not being able to discuss with anyone other than him at 5/3rd about A ) and B ) from above as to why my ATM card was locked. \n\nThese are all admitted acknowledgements that I have brought to his attention the day before about my ATM card being locked and that I am bringing to his attention that I need fixed right then as we were speaking on the phone. I was trying to tell this Branch manager on the phone that I want to talk to a badged 5/3rd employee about this matter and not some outsourced 3rd party in a foreign country who just reads off a general, unspecific copy/pasted script, but I did not get the chance before being disconnected. \n\nKeep in mind an ATM card deactivation is very different than the card being placed on locked status. \n* An ATM card lock happens all the time with backend security automation, and they are usually but not always accompanied with automatic texts and calls notifying the affected ATM card holder ( which did not happen ), but they are ... NOT ... ATM card deactivation. \n\n* An ATM card deactivation is entirely a different thing. Deactivations involve much separate set of protocols and s.o.p.s. and is never allowed to be automated by software in any banking institution per adopted federal and state guidelines. These guidelines pertain to required communication with the card holder prior too or just after a deactivation. \n\nNow we have the 2 isolated events 1 and 3 that should not normally happen in succession and certainly not as a sequentially chained automation process [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Event 3 ].\n\nThese three events do not yet suggest strongly that something is amiss with backend security processes but are the precursor for general cause for concern for upcoming successive evidence exhibits. \n\n[ Exhibit A ] : No alerts are ever dispatched to me my phone about my ATM debit cards deactivation. \nI was never notified either for the lock that was placed on my ATM the 2 days prior too and most importantly after the cards deactivation. In fact, it was not until ( XX/XX/2021 ) inside the XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I found out was not only locked, but now deactivated. \n\n[ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Event 3 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit A ] has its own autonomous processes. It generally is initialized with a call from a call center, or many times can often precede a manual deactivation [ Event 2 ] by the person who manually deactivates the card but make no mistake [ Exhibit A ] can never be deliberately skipped all together and an institution that skipped this process would be in violation of Federal guidelines if it was.\n\nI was never notified, by any means, when the card went to deactivated status, [ Event 2 ], on Friday night ( XX/XX/2021 ). Those federally required automatic notifications, require all banking institutions to immediately contact the effected account holder by 2 of 3 means. The automated notification process that is normally triggered immediately by a card deactivation did not occur. \n\nThe mere absence of these mandatory alerts and notifications suggests some kind manual override has taken place by someone who would have had those executive privileges to do so. These three events together suggest possibly someone internal to 5/3rd backend security, most likely someone manually disabled those automatic alerts that would have informed me of my cards deactivated status. The system that automatically dispatches those notifications, if left alone, would have been sent immediately and automatically to my phone upon my cards deactivation, but were not. \n\n[ Exhibit B ] : Evidence that the ATM card automatic re-issuance system was disabled. \nThis system should have dispatched a new card immediately and automatically as well upon my card deactivation but did not.\n\nNow we have isolated events : [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit B ] Neither did this notification process contact me to confirm a correct mailing address, nor was I was never mailed a new card automatically by the backend automatic ATM debit card reissuance process.\n\nSo, whoever deactivated my ATM card [ Event 2 ] also went a step farther with disabling notifications and [ Exhibit A ] then went a step farther with [ Exhibit B ] manually disabling 5/3rd banks internal processes to reissue a new card. What these actor ( s ) dont realize is that this potentially jeopardized my life, and not just my inability to pay for something like a restaurant meal.\n\nBanking institutions reserve the right to manually deactivate any clients ATM cards that they deem necessary, and as much, and as often as they deem necessaryas long as they meet one federally mandated requirement.\n\nWhat banking institutions do not reserve a right to do, is deactivate a persons ATM card, and then also disable the means of notifying that affected cardholder about it as well. When this happens, then there is evidence of critical security violations ( not just one ) have occurred either at once or in tandem and are just cause for further inquiries be made by regulating authorities to assess the danger that these infractions may have to users. In many cases an automatically dialed person to person phone call is made prior too or in real time to the affected card holder before deactivation ever occurs if not a direct phone call from the G.M. \n\nHow did my 5/3rd ATM card get deactivated with no disclosure? \n\n[ Exhibit C ] : XXXX XXXX branch manager XXXX XXXX manually issues a new card, the next day, on behalf of the disabled ATM card automatic re-issuance system mentioned above. \n[ Exhibit C ] even occurs, the next day when I go into the XXXX XXXX branch and branch manager XXXX XXXX says, let me go ahead and send a card out to you now. \n\nNow we have isolated events : [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit B ] [ Exhibit C ] This is significant because branch manager XXXX XXXX is now manually doing what should have already been done automatically by an autonomous process but did not. \n\nAll these events and exhibits suggests at a very minimum that 5/3rd bank has such lax internal security measures that it could allow in some manner a clients card to become locked, then deactivated and without notice. Is this repeatable on a massive scale?\n\nSleepy unconcerned District Manager on the phone.\n\nWhen I brought all of this to a district managers attention a couple days later, who is over branch manager XXXX XXXX, he literally fell asleep on the phone, while I was talking to him. When he called me back generically apologizing for my overall bad experience ... he could not recall what I said in particular when I questioned him about the things I had been discussing when his phone went silent for 30 plus seconds.\n\n Multiple disconnects by XXXX. supervisors who would not transfer to the presidents office. \nAttempted to get the president office phone number to convey this whole experience for over 20 plus different calls amounting to 5 hours total of phone time and was disconnected by a supervisor each time. I had to wait to get to each one of those supervisors for over 25 minutes each time. Was finally able to hack my way in through a mortgage sales line phone number and talk to a XXXX salesperson, who was actually very helpful and even demonstrated concerned with my experience at 5/3rd.\n\nExperienced the worst of all customer service when I spoke to XXXX with my second call back into the 5/3rds Presidents office. \nThen after originally speaking to XXXX, who was also helpful, I spoke to another rep, XXXX, in what was supposed to be just a quick call back to the presidents office to just confirm a few questions about fees. XXXX appeared to be uninterested, callous, and deliberately unhelpful. I asked politely to be transferred back to XXXX, where I could pick up where I left off with XXXX and was told by XXXX that she will be taking over my case. Then XXXX with the same insincere, mono-tone told me that I would be also incurring additional fees to my 5/3rd account as well to the ones that I had already picked up from other severed auto-billing relationships due to the cards deactivation. \n\n\nAccrued fees as a result of the unnecessary deactivation Fees accrued at my apartment complex where I tried to pay a bill and assessed a {$6.00} fee and then, and a fee with the city of XXXX XXXX XXXXt where my account assessed {$35.00}. Comes to a current total of XXXX. There may be more fees. \n\n\n5/3rd Corporate Security Officer who calls me on the phone and tells me he is closing the account My account was closed by Corporate Security Officer who called me out of the blue and was not remotely concerned with hearing about any of the security concerns. He became interruptive on the call and then hung up the phone and closed the account. \n\n\n\nGood questions that the CPFB could pose to 5/3rd bank might be..\n\n1. How do locked cards pose less of a threat to the customer such that an additional security measure such as a deactivation need to be taken if it remains unaffected in locked status?\n\n2. Were the usual alert notifications that would have notified the affected card holder manually, ( or willfully ) disabled somehow in some subtle, or not so subtle, way by 5/3rd employees with executive privileges to do so.\n\n3. If a locked card was never supposed to go to deactivated status then how was it this one- time event?\n\nPut another way..\n\nIf 5/3rds legal team just copies and paste an explanation as a response to the CFPB ( or.. some future civil or criminal prosecution team that will be using this narrative as supplemental evidence of a pattern of negligence due to non-compliance ), then how is there not a potential pattern hazardous reoccurring repeatable issues at least addressed here?\n\n4. Have the concerns for account and card holder safety and notifications within the ATM card deactivation process brought forth in this complaint mostly fallen on deaf corporate ears? Or can they show proof of demonstrate measures taken to prevent no-notification deactivations from ever occurring to its customers again. \n\n\n\n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-06T12:34:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"37086","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4982875","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-12-07T13:35:24.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["[ Event 1 ] : Was never contacted before or after the initial card lock My card is locked sometime late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning with no notice given ( XX/XX/2021 ). 5/3rd also <em>fails</em> to communicate to the affected ( me in this <em>case</em> ) of this automated locking action and leaves me stranded and unable to access direly needed funds to get home. In my <em>case</em>, I was at a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX dealership at midnight with no way to pay for a XXXX or XXXX driver."]},"sort":[5.279399,"4982875"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3625894","_score":4.983519,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I received an email from you referencing complaint XXXX. I believe the OCC forwarded to you the complaints I filed with them regarding regarding Wells Fargo 's age discrimination and their failure to process two refinance loans correctly. I do not believe my entire complaint was forwarded. Please see below. Thank you for your assistance researching and correcting these issues. \nBest regards, XXXX XXXX I would like to file two formal complaints against Wells Fargo. These issues cost us months of lower interest rates and a refund of {$21000.00} Age discrimination - I believe Wells Fargo violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, by rejecting our loan application because of my age. Wells Fargo tried to impose different terms and conditions on our loan by declining us for a 30 year term and trying to persuade us to take a 20 year term. I believe they discriminated against me by calculating age actuaries instead of financials. The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), protect elderly people against discrimination from getting a loan or any kind of credit based on their age. It is my understanding ; other lenders provide residential mortgages allowing seniors to use imputed income from their retirement funds, IRAs and other retirement assets to qualify for the loan they wanted. We should be able to use the balances in these accounts to supplement our earnings on paper without ever taking out any money. Ultimately, we were turned down for the loan because our debt-to-income didnt match Wells Fargos high standards even though we had abundant equity in our homes, $ XXXX in liquidity and excellent credit scores. Wells Fargo failed to inform us our loan was not approved within 30 days of submitting our completed application. When we found out our loan had been rejected, we had to request they send the rejection to us in writing. They did not provide the specific reason for the rejection. Wells Fargo refused to give us the name/emails of any contacts in their Executive Office to file a complaint. After ten months of battling with Wells Fargo and threatening to file a complaint, they refinanced not one but, two of our properties. This cost us a great deal of time and money. Please see XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo complaint letter. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Dear Wells Fargo, We currently have our home mortgage of {$980000.00} with Wells Fargo ( WF ) for our primary residence in XXXX, XXXX  with a loan balance of {$820000.00} and the majority of our investments with Wells Fargo Wealth Management {>= $1,000,000}. We were contacted by WF to refinance our XXXX XXXX, XXXX  home ( loan to value 47 % ) and once finalized ; we wanted to refinance our XXXX, XXXX  home with WF ( loan to value 41 % ). We have a combined equity of nearly {>= $1,000,000} in the two homes. \nWe started the process to refinance our investment home in XXXX XXXX, XXXX  back in XXXX of this year. Throughout the many weeks it took to complete the process, we were repeatedly told we were the highest priority and that the new loan would be completed any day. At no time during the process, were we informed that we were at risk to qualify for a 30 year fixed rate loan. \nThe loan amount was approximately {$560000.00} ( balance was {$550000.00} ) and the house appraised at {>= $1,000,000}. We agreed to a 30-year fixed : 3.875 % @ 0 % points 3.907 % ( APR ) and locked the rate. As interest rates continued to decline, we were contacted by our lending agent, XXXX XXXX and told we could now get a 30-year fixed : 3.75 % @ 0 % points and pay 0.125 % for the re-lock and that would be covered through a credit. There would be an additional 0.375 % credit to assist with covering a chunk of closing costs. 3.77 % ( APR ). See email clip sent from the lending agent on XX/XX/XXXX highlighted below : 30-year fixed : 3.75 % @ 0 % points the 0.125 % would be covered through a credit & there would be an additional 0.375 % credit to assist with covering a chunk of closing costs. 3.77 % ( APR ) -- Monthly payment ( principal+interest+taxes+insurance ) = {$4000.00} Interest repaid by year 7= {$130000.00} Interest repaid by year 10= {$180000.00} We agreed to the new terms, locked the new interest rates and were very excited when it went through on XX/XX/XXXX. Throughout this process, we received two letters of approval and one extension from Wells Fargo confirming the loan was approved and was reassured by our lending agent that our loan was approved. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, some 8 weeks after we started, we were abruptly informed that we did not qualify for the 30 year fixed loan despite receiving a letters from Retail National Sales Manager, XXXX XXXX approving the loan. The reason given in our denial letter was my credit score ( score XXXX ). I had to request the denial letter which read : The Key factors that reportedly adversely affected the Credit Score : RATIO OF BALANCE TO LIMIT ON BANK REVOLVING OR OTHER REV ACCTS TOO HIGH TOO MANY ACCOUNTS WITH BALANCES TOO MANY ACCOUNTS RECENTLY OPENED. We did not find any of these reasons to be true and our credit score is considered to be very high. \nWe were told by our lending agent that the denial was due to too strict of restrictions from the Federal Government. He also said it was likely due to the fact that I had retired in XXXX. Our agent on XX/XX/XXXX informed us the asset dissipation policy is an OCC requirement. It is my understanding ; WF has chosen to do the calculations using the reduction of our assets assuming 30 % not the Federal Government. \nWe were than offered a 20 year loan and told we were already approved and the documents were sitting at the title company waiting for us to sign them. We were told this was our only option and that no other loans including ARMs would be available to us. The 20 year loan was offered at a good rate 6.625 % however, did not meet our goal to create positive cash flow on the property. Our agent suggested we could pay the loan down {$100000.00} after 30 days of closing the loan and thus, meet our cash flow goal. This certainly came across as a probable bait and switch scheme and made us feel very uncomfortable. We met with our Wealth Advisors and they were not in favor of buying the loan down. We subsequently declined the 20 year loan. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I requested the lending agent return all of our financial documents via a different format then the WF secured site. To this date, we still have not received all of our documentation. \nWhile we were seriously disillusioned by all this, we were ready to move on. That is when your Corporate Office Customer Care Recovery Group called us. I spoke to Executive Resolution Specialist, XXXX XXXX. She said she was calling to follow up on our dissatisfaction with the recent refinancing. I found her to be exceptionally polite. I explained to her that I had not filed a complaint. I informed her I had contacted my Lending Agent to return our documents so that we could refinance with another lender. She then asked if I would explain to her what had happened in which, I did. She said she was going to investigate the matter and would get back to me within two weeks. She did get back to me on XX/XX/XXXX, some three weeks later. She tried to explain on the phone why we had not been approved for the 30 year term loan. I found her information to be in part incorrect and incomplete and let her know I was still confused and disappointed. She said she was required to send me a letter and that I would understand the matter once I read the letter. I received the letter over a week later. Like our conversation, I found the letter to be in part incorrect and incomplete. It did however state the reason for the denial was due to the debt to income ratio. What it didnt explain is how a customer with $ 3.6M in investments and a balance of over {>= $1,000,000} in home equity does not qualify for a 30 year refinance. \nWe thought everything was over when on XX/XX/XXXX ; I received another call from XXXX XXXX of the same office. She said she was following up on the conversation I had with XXXX XXXX. She said she was taking over the investigation and that she was going to elevate the matter to the Highest Level of Underwriting. We discussed the debt to income ratio issue and discovered WF underwriting was not counting my total asset depletion of {$13000.00} per month or our full rent income of {$5000.00} per month. I explained our Wealth Manager would be happy to write a letter defining my retirement plan and the fact that this income would be distributed every month until I am age XXXX barring a financial economic crisis. I requested once again that all of our financial documents be returned to us via email and that we get reimbursed for our home appraisal. XXXX said she would call me back no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \nI did not hear back from XXXX and on XX/XX/XXXX, I called the Corporate Office Customer Care Recovery Group and reached XXXX Supervisor, XXXX XXXX. She was unaware of our loan request or investigation and after a short while was able to find it. She began to go over Ms. XXXX letter and again, she did not have the correct facts. I found Ms. XXXX to be defensive and at times argumentative. She certainly was not empathetic towards the situation. I once again requested WF provide us with all of our documents and provide a refund for the appraisal. She said this would not be possible. After considerable time, she asked if I would like to speak to the underwriter to explain the denial and DTI calculation. She said she would patch him into the call. I informed her I had consulted with an independent mortgage broker and would like to include him on the call. We agreed to schedule the call the following week. \nI did not hear back from Ms. XXXX. Instead, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from Ms. XXXX. I explained that I had not heard back from her and in her absence, I had spoken to Ms. XXXX and that we were going to schedule a call with the underwriter. She tersely said that would not be happening and that customers were not allowed to speak to underwriters. I explained that Ms. XXXX had suggested the call. She said that was not true. I encouraged her to listen to our recorded conversation. She reiterated that the call would not take place and that customers were not allowed to speak to underwriters. She said she had prepared a follow up letter and would be sending it shortly. She was very curt with me. I told her I was becoming very frustrated with her office and that I originally had no intention of filing a complaint but, now I was ready to. I asked the name of the WF CEO and/or the President. She said would not provide any names. I then asked if there was a government agency I could file a complaint with and she said the CFPD. If Ms. XXXX goal was to frustrate us and make me feel like a deadbeat, she succeeded. \nI returned from being out of the country last week and had received a XXXX XXXX  envelope while away on XX/XX/XXXX. The envelope included a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX. It had been over a month since she originally said when would investigate the matter and get back to me and 28 days since she said she would be sending me a letter. The letter basically reiterated Ms. XXXX letter. In summary, she stated WF handled the matter properly and no corrections were needed. The letter was in no way apologetic for the time and money we had spent, just regretted any frustration we may have incurred. It also did not provide a spread sheet calculation for the DTI or any OCC requirements. \nOver the past month, I have contacted several lending companies ( banks ) and have both verbal and written approval that they will provide us with a 30 year term loan. They have accepted letters from WF Wealth Management that define our asset dissipation and have determined we qualify for a variety of loans. The banks and the independent mortgage broker I have spoken with both stated WF did not do the asset dissipation calculation correctly. It appears WF calculations are using the reduction of my assets assuming 30 %. The calculation ( if WF must use early withdrawal ) should be to take the total of years until I turn XXXX ( 3 years ) and discount that amount. Additionally, I am not taking retirement funds or paying any early withdrawal penalties, so there should not be a penalty in the calculation. My Wells Fargo Wealth Manager offered to write a letter confirming all if this and we were told it wasnt necessary. \nPlease allow me to remind you, I did not contact your Corporate Office Customer Care Recovery Group, they contacted me. After 4 months of trying to chase down the facts, losing our appraisal money and thousands of dollars in refinance savings, we are ready to move on. What does all of this it mean to our WF relationship and future? We will be refinancing our XXXX XXXX, XXXX  home ( loan to value 47 % ) and our XXXX , XXXX  home ( loan to value 41 % ) with another bank. The loans will equate to approximately {>= $1,000,000}. \nThis is where we need your help. In order to get a similar interest rate at another bank, we will be required to transfer our assets to the new bank. We do not want to cause any ill will to our Wealth Manager or discontinue their services. When I asked for assistance from your Customer Care Group, I got the same answer from all of them You are welcome to reapply. I requested that one of your underwriters or lending officers look at our documents and the calculations that were used and let us know what loan terms we do qualify for and was told that could not happen. It seems strange that the other banks we have spoken with have provided various loan options and pre-approvals but, WF will not. Can you please have someone within your organization work with us to satisfactorily secure the refinancing of our home in XXXX XXXX? \nWe will respectively await your response and determine the outcome from there. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX 1. Improper Closing After denying us twice for a 30 year loan, Wells Fargo informed us they would refinance our property if we would consider refinancing both of our properties at the same time. We agreed to do so. Wells Fargo failed to live up to their commitments after we closed on the two properties. Payoffs were not made on time and unauthorized withdrawals were made from our checking accounts resulting in delays of us receiving our escrow refund and erroneous withdrawals by Wells Fargo and the former lender, XXXX DBA XXXX XXXX. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mandate to stay at home, we have been unable to go to the post office and check our P.O. Box. We communicated this to Wells Fargo and pleaded with them to communicate with us. We spent many hours trying to get them to correct their errors and wire our refund of {$21000.00} back to our account. We also requested they provide a new closing statement as the calculations had changed due to the late payoffs. They have failed to do both. It has been over a month since Wells Fargo was notified of their errors and despite numerous emails and phone calls ; there has been no response from the Wells Fargo Customer Care Group or Executive Office other than they are researching the matter. At this point, one would have to believe this is in retaliation of us escalating the matter to their Executive Office. Please see XX/XX/XXXX Complaint Chronological History that we sent to the Wells Fargo Executive Offices. \nComplaint Chronological History Wells Fargo Refinancing of properties : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX  XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Refinancing completed by Wells Fargo. Both Properties closings complete. Required to pay cash of {$8700.00} for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX property at closing in which {$8000.00} was for an advanced property tax payment. The closing statement and amount owed were not the same. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX provided incorrect figures. We were informed XXXX XXXX would be providing a refund of our escrow account balance from in the amount of {$7800.00} once the property closed. During closing placed conference call with WF XXXX XXXX. She confirmed both properties payoff to be wired XX/XX/XXXX auto withdrawals would be canceled. She also instructed us to pay the lower amount of the cash to close. XXXX XXXX XXXX sent a contract notary to the closing and did not have a representative available to provide the correct cash to close amount. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mandatory 3 day right of rescission wait period over. Payoff loans were to be wired. \nXX/XX/XXXX Confirmation email from Wells Fargo Your Loan Closing Is Complete and an email from XXXX XXXX, Loan Officer confirming the same. \nXX/XX/XXXX Overage credit issued in the amount of {$340.00} for XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX Auto withdrawal from Wells Fargo checking account. Withdrawal made by Wells Fargo to Wells Fargo in the amount of {$5500.00} for XXXX loan payment. \nXX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX payoff made late by Wells Fargo XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX DBA, XXXX XXXX made an auto withdrawal of {$5600.00} from XXXX XXXX checking account for the XXXX loan payment for XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I sent email to WF, XXXX XXXX and copied the following : XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, of Wells Fargo, XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX. The email detailed the challenges that had occurred and requested assistance resolving the issues. I also requested XXXX XXXX set up an escrow account for XXXX XXXX XXXX. Wells Fargo did not set up the Escrow account for this property as directed. I also asked XXXX to contact both lenders which, she did not do. \nXX/XX/XXXX Received return email sent from XXXX XXXX stating Wells Fargo does not call existing lenders or cancel auto payments. They also do not call the existing lenders and ask them to rush the refund of the escrow account payments, nor can title companies. This contradicts what we were told by his assistant XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I spoke to XXXX, agent with XXXX  XXXX. She said the reason they withdrew funds out of our account by autopay and the reason a check has not been issued for our escrow refund is because the loan was never paid off. I let her know we closed on the property on XXXX XXXX and that the funds were to be wired to them on XX/XX/XXXX. She double checked and said the payoff was never received. \nXX/XX/XXXX I sent an email to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX confirming that XXXX. XXXX had not received the payoff and requested assistance again. \nXX/XX/XXXX I spoke with XXXX of WF Home Loan Management. She stated the Wells Fargo loan was not paid off on time. She said XXXX XXXX XXXX should have wired the payoff on or before XXXX XXXX, XXXX. She said she could not assist me with the XXXX  XXXX loan. XXXX sent an email with my Customer Account Activity Statement confirming the payoff had not been done on time. She also confirmed that {$5500.00} was withdrawn from our account and applied to the outstanding loan amount and that Wells Fargo home mortgage should have been informed by our home mortgage consultant to discontinue auto draft and they were not. \nXX/XX/XXXX I sent another email to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX detailing what had occurred and that our closing instructions and their commitments were not followed. Wells Fargos mistakes had compromised our XXXX XXXX  account. In total, the amount of erroneous payments and escrow refunds were {$21000.00}. Again, I asked for their assistance. \nXX/XX/XXXX Received a return email from XXXX XXXX apologizing for the trouble and stating XXXX XXXX would be reaching out to the Wells Fargo servicing concierge to see if they can help straighten some of this out. He copied his Supervisor XXXX XXXX, Sales Manager to assist in his absence. \nXX/XX/XXXX Email sent from XXXX XXXX informing us that XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX was researching the payoff for XXXX XXXX  XXXX with her accounting department ; once she gets back to Wells Fargo with an update, she would let us know what happened. She also confirmed the payoff for XXXX XXXX XXXX was not made on time and that the original amount wired only covered through XX/XX/XXXX. She stated that we would be refunded our escrow balance and the balance of the payment not used towards the payoff. She also said that a Wells Fargo internal contact has requested the refund be expedited so it will be put in the mail within the next 3 business days. We never received a confirmation of the refund or the amount. Refund still not received. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Received another email from XXXX XXXX stating XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounting department confirmed that the payoff was sent to XXXX XXXX and that shell be reaching out to XXXX XXXX directly tomorrow to follow up. I spoke with XXXX XXXX and they had not heard from XXXX XXXX. We never heard back from XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I sent another email to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX informing them there has been no progress or follow-up from them or XXXX XXXX XXXX  and requesting once again their assistance and getting this resolved. I provided a very detailed record as to what had occurred and asked for a detailed explanation as to why this occurred, who was responsible and what is being done about it. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Received a return email from XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX supervisor apologizing for our closing experience and informing us that the matter had been escalated it to Wells Fargo Customer Care and Recovery Group and that they will begin research and a representative from that group will be in touch with us sometime next week. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I received a call from XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Customer Care department. She said she had been notified that there was an issue with our refinancing. I spent over 20 minutes on the phone with her as she had no information on our refinancing or details of what occurred. She said she had not received any of the emails I had sent and was not familiar with WF XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. I asked her to request all information pertaining to our mortgages from XXXX XXXX along with my emails as they explained what has taken place with the exception of why and who was responsible. She said that she would look into the matter and get back with me no later than XX/XX/XXXX. I explained to her that this was unacceptable and that this would be over a month since our two properties were to be paid off and we needed to get our money back now. We never heard from XXXX XXXX again. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX We received not one but two XXXX XXXX packages containing identical form letters from XXXX XXXX, Senior Vice President Wells Fargo Home lending. The letter ( s ) said WF was committed to promptly addressing our concerns and that they were going to complete necessary research and get back to us by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I sent another email to XXXX XXXX again pleading for assistance in resolving the matter and getting our money returned. I requested Wells Fargo to wire our mortgage payments that were erroneously withdrawn back into our bank accounts immediately. We also requested to know specific dates as to when our escrow refunds will be delivered and those monies wired into our banks accounts. I explained, due to COVID-19, XXXX  issued a stay at home order and we did not want to take trips to the bank or post office. I asked for contact information to elevate the matter. We never heard back from XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I filed a complaint with Wells Fargo Online XXXX and received a confirmation return email stating Wells Fargo take complaints seriously and will attempt to call me within 2 business days to discuss our specific issue and they would also send you a letter through postal mail confirming that we received your complaint. We never heard back from them. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I sent another email to : XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargo, XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX. I provided copies of emails dating back to our closing date of XX/XX/XXXX. I requested they please read them and respond accordingly to their and involvement and responsibility in the refinancing and closing of our two properties and to communicate back from by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I explained that the errors, lack of transparency, communication and amount of time to rectify the mistakes are unacceptable and reminded them, we closed on the two properties on XX/XX/XXXX ; payoffs were to be wired XX/XX/XXXX. The total amount of erroneous withdrawals and escrow refunds owed to us are {$21000.00}. \nWe still have had no communication from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I completed their online survey and informed them of our poor experience again with no follow-up. \nXX/XX/XXXX I received a return email from XXXX XXXX stating the file was escalated to Wells Fargo Customer Care and Recovery Group suggesting reaching out to them directly. He said, at this point, with the loans closed there is not much he could do. It had been 11 days since I received a call from XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Customer Care and Recovery Group and despite me leaving several messages for her ; I never received a call back. \nXX/XX/XXXX I received an email from XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of her, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. She informed me that XXXX XXXX takes direction from the Lender regarding Escrows only and that Wells Fargo will have to address our concerns. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX still has not responded. \nXX/XX/XXXX I called and left another message for XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Customer Care department informing her I had left messages and have not heard back from her since XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I received a voicemail mail from an XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Executive Office stating that XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Customer Care department needed additional time to research the matter and will follow-up by XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I called XXXX XXXX again and received a recording that she was not available and helping other customers. The call was forwarded to a XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Executive Office. I explained my frustration in trying to get XXXX XXXX to respond to me and have our matter resolved. XXXX apologized and looked up my file. She said that a number of my emails had been forwarded to the Wells Fargo Customer Care department. She said she did not know what was taking so long and why no one was getting back to me. She offered to have me speak to XXXX XXXX Supervisor, XXXX XXXX. I tried to reach her at her extension but, she was unavailable. XXXX promised me that XXXX XXXX would call me back before the end of the day. She also suggested I leave her a voicemail, in which I did. XXXX did not call me back until XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I received a voicemail from XXXX XXXX. When she called, her phone number did not appear and I was notified on my XXXX that it was a spam call. Her message said that XXXX XXXX would no longer be working on my case and that it had been assigned to XXXX XXXX. There was no information on why the case was transferred or any update on the research XXXX XXXX had completed. She said they were still researching the matter. XXXX XXXX said I would be contacted by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I returned XXXX XXXX call at XXXX and received her messaging service. The call was transferred to a gentleman named XXXX. He tried to reach XXXX and said she had gone home for the day. He said he would let her know I had called and would request her to call me back. I have never heard back from XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX I tried to reach XXXX XXXX and his message service said he was unavailable. I left a voicemail for XXXX to call me back. I never heard back from XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo made two loan payment withdrawals from our Wells Fargo checking account in the amounts of {$3900.00} and {$3600.00}. This was done despite the fact that we have not received communication regarding the {$21000.00} of erroneous withdrawals and escrow refunds owed to us.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-04-27T21:42:25.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"816XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3625894","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-04-27T21:05:27.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Wells Fargo <em>failed</em> to live up to their commitments after we <em>closed</em> on the two properties. Payoffs were not made on time and unauthorized withdrawals were made from our checking accounts <em>resulting</em> in delays of us receiving our escrow refund and erroneous withdrawals by Wells Fargo and the former lender, XXXX DBA XXXX XXXX. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mandate to stay at home, we have been unable to go to the post office and check our P.O. Box."]},"sort":[4.983519,"3625894"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9478311","_score":4.962851,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Mr. Cooper Failed to timely disburse my tax payments from their escrow accounts and failed to properly conduct escrow analyses for me during my XXXX XXXX XXXX proceedings. I also sent a previous complaint through consumer financial and they closed it stating they did not know me as a client false information. They also submitted false information to the attorney for court that a payment I made in XX/XX/XXXX was returned by bank and there is no evidence because that did not occur. \nI am in an active bankruptcy. Because of this, Mr. Cooper, my mortgage company, blocks the use of their website. Consequently, I cant obtain the complaint form, so I have to send emails. Mr Cooper has requested a court hearing that they be removed from the bankruptcy to proceed with foreclosure due to nonpayment which is false. They are asking for money that is not actually owed to them and stalling to fix the issue before the court date. Ive continually asked them to check their information make sure it is correct and inform their attorney so this action can be stopped. They have failed to provide a resolution other than they did an escrow analysis and they finally updated the monthly payment amount as I stated at the beginning of the year was wrong, but they made it effective XX/XX/XXXX which is incorrect still. I actually paid correctly but Mr. Cooper has included property tax payments on the mortgage bills that should not be because the property tax amount for XXXX is {XXXX, due to a veteran being XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois. I provided them with a copy of the XXXX XXXX  rating. I also called in advance of the XXXX bills starting. The tax amount for XXXX charged by Mr. Cooper was also incorrect due to a partial year adjustment and the overpayment has not been credited to my account as of yet. Emails about this issue was sent on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. I have also called over 10 times to explain request additional assistance and to actually be able to explain the issue since they have failed to provide a resolution as if they are not understanding the request that was clearly stated. I provided Mr. Cooper with XXXX payment details asked them to total the 12 month amount for XXXX and advise what they should have charged based off what I actually paid because they initially was charging the higher tax amount for the first few months and adjusted in XXXX but didnt take into account that I had already overpaid the escrow for months. I called multiple times also and spoke to representatives who said I could not talk to the research incoming dept, the tax dept, or an escalations dept. They always provide a message that I need to go to county for overpayment but the issue isnt that the county was overpaid its that I paid more to escrow for the property tax that was charged in the beginning of the year but they paid a lesser amount to the county and did not adjust my mortgage account. I sent them an email stating I have still not received a resolution and they keep closing the cases trying to force us to court with misinformation that I am behind in payments due to this property tax that I dont actually owe and technically I am overpaid. This forces me to have to send a new email and them to use a new effective date for my request versus using the original email dates. I have to start over every time for the same issue. A few of the Original email messages sent below My email should be forwarded to the Tax dept as well as the research dept. Please work together to address and fix the account. Per speaking with XXXX today on the customer service line, I understand you have now just updated the loan amount to reflect {$1300.00} monthly based off finally updating the property taxes correctly. Which means you have all the documentation that is needed for the review I am about to request. What I am inquiring about is for XXXX billing amounts has the {$1300.00} amount been retroactive back to the XX/XX/XXXX date as the {$0.00} tax amount is effective as of XX/XX/XXXX. This needs to be addressed immediately as Mr. Cooper believes that I am in default as of XXXX but the amounts due from XXXX should be {$5500.00} of which my payments to date total {$5600.00} and that is without the {$790.00} that I overpaid in XXXX. When you look into the XXXX amount my {$790.00} would make my total paid {$6400.00}. Please research and adjust the account. As we are due in court XX/XX/XXXX and I would like the judge to have all the details correct from MR. Cooper. Secondly for the XXXX Mr Cooper Bills if P & I is XXXX monthly for a yearly amount of XXXX, the property tax was {$4500.00}, and the homeowners insurance payment was XXXX. That would mean MR Cooper for the year of XXXX should have been paid {$21000.00} and based off the payments I made for XXXX bills, ( which was also confirmed by the balance sheet that was sent from Mr. Cooper to the bankruptcy attorney ), I paid {$21000.00} which would result in an overpayment of {$790.00} that has yet to be applied to my account as a credit for my XXXX payments which I was advised by a representative would be since I am not allowed to talk to the dept directly. Please research and provide a resolution. Again court is on XX/XX/XXXX and I have been sending these emails seeking a resolution for quite some time. I have not received an update or a resolution to the issue of the overpayment for the year XXXX. We overpaid to Mr. Cooper for the mortgage bills dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the payment amount was finally adjusted on the XX/XX/XXXX bill but the amount overpaid from us to Mr Cooper was never reimbursed to the account. In addition for the months of XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the property tax is {$0.00} and Mr. Cooper advised they have updated their system with this information going forward but it seems you have not retroactively entered the amounts to reflect the proper dates which is the reason the Mr. Cooper attorney believes there is missing payments when we are actually paid up to date. The property tax exemption is effective as of XX/XX/XXXX not XX/XX/XXXX. I spoke to XXXX today at the call center at XXXX who apologized and stated the information has been updated but the retroactive dates have not been entered properly. She submitted another request for the dates to be corrected again. Please correct the misinformation and advise the attorney for a swift resolution. After Mr. Cooper replied that they updated the payment amount effective XX/XX/XXXX and no refund is due from county which I never said it was I sent this email and also recopied original again. This is not the resolution please read the entire email and address the situation or call me if you need it to be explained. I understand you updated the payment amount based on the tax bill to XXXX so the mortgage amount has been adjusted to XXXX. However, the effective date is incorrect. An effective date on the county tax property bill is XX/XX/XXXX. That is the date the taxes became {$0.00}. Also on my XXXX billing statements the effective date of the tax change caused an overpayment. The date XX/XX/XXXX was used for the mortgage amount change it should have been added as XX/XX/XXXX because the property tax amount is effective as of XX/XX/XXXX for that bill. At this point the overpaid amount is over {$50.00} and also over two months of escrow payments I did not receive a check and the overpaid amount has not been applied to my account. I would like someone to reevaluate all of my billing amounts as now this is starting to appear as a regular accounting practice error that may have been in place for years and not looked at properly by your department. The original email is attached again also for reference. It asks in that email for retroactive dates for the county tax effective date. Please address the proper issues. \n\nAdditional emails sent since previous complaint in XXXX and XXXX. \nCan you please confirm the amounts and if the information is correct and documented correctly. I am having a payment issue and believe the payments have not been applied properly. They may be being mixed in with pre petition amounts. \n\nYear XXXX Post petition Amount billed by Mr. Cooper : XXXX AXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mr. Cooper XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 Mr. Cooper XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mr. Cooper XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mr. Cooper XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX would total more than the P & I plus the escrow amount. If the tax amount has been adjusted to 100 % XXXX at {$0.00} property tax and you have not and will not pay out anything to the county why is it still being charged on my statements because I was asked to pay {$1700.00} and my payment for XXXX for the correct amount the customer service said I would owe of XXXX is being held in suspense and not applied to the account. \n\nIs it possible for me to talk to someone in the appropriate dept since the billing is not adding up? I continue to get a resolution that an overpayment has not been made. But based off the yearly calculations I am continuing to be overcharged monthly and my payments are being held in suspense improperly. I do not believe a whole overall picture is being looked at. I have continued to try and get this resolved since XXXX to no avail. Is it possible to have one person at the company who is able to communicate to multiple depts and myself so I can understand better why I continue to get the same resolution when I clearly believe and have provided calculations of why the resolution is not satisfactory. I would like a call from someone at Mr. Cooper to go over the resolution and understand where my dispute comes from. I was under the impression my payments to Mr. Cooper are post petition amounts. XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I do not understand why it shows I am owing for XXXX. For XXXX mortgage resolution states no overpayment from county. I understand there should not be an overpayment from county I am saying I paid Mr. Cooper more taxes into the escrow because I was originally being charged XXXX for months before the amount was adjusted to XXXX but that mortgage change amount did not account for what I had already overpaid for the months before the change. Mr. Cooper has the extra money because they did not disburse all that was paid to county they only disbursed what was billed by the county. \n\nThis is not the same request this is a new request asking for clarification on amounts I was actually billed for vs amount you actually disbursed from the escrow for the post petition amounts that were due. \n\nFor XXXX billing period can I have the amount of escrow paid by me for that bill period and the amount that was actually disbursed from that paid amount? Was the escrow amount charged for the year an equal amount to the amount that was disbursed to the county for taxes and property insurance for the year of billing? \n\nFor XXXX Escrow amount can you advise the total amount you billed for vs what you have paid out to the county for taxes and the property hazard insurance for the XXXX billing period? \n\n\nI just need the amounts not the big spreadsheet. Example : for XXXX the escrow amount that was charged per your billing statements {$7600.00} which included {$4500.00} that was disbursed XXXX XXXX property tax and XXXX for property hazard insurance. For XXXX your escrow payments made totaled {$8400.00}. The additional {$790.00} went to? If I can have just the escrow amounts vs disbursements as the spreadsheet nor the escrow statement itself is giving a yearly view based on the full calendar year? And seeing as all but 1 month of XXXX is pre petition I would think it would be available.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-11T12:52:22.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"61008","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9478311","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","date_received":"2024-07-10T06:30:10.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions","sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cooper <em>Failed</em> to timely disburse my tax payments from their escrow accounts and <em>failed</em> to properly conduct escrow analyses for me during my XXXX XXXX XXXX proceedings. I also sent a previous complaint through consumer financial and they <em>closed</em> it stating they did not know me as a client false information. They also submitted false information to the attorney for court that a payment I made in XX/XX/XXXX was returned by bank and there is no evidence because that did not occur."]},"sort":[4.962851,"9478311"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8576967","_score":4.2892704,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\n\nComplaint ID #2XXXX\n\nOriginally submitted on XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a Federal Reserve banking services credit card product issue, the problem stated as a purchase shown on my account statement, filed against XXXX XXXX, has been formally withdrawn, given better understanding of the Federal regulatory divisions.  \n\nSo for clarity, this complaint is intended against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its credit card subsidiaries for violations of the legacy and recently issued customer compliance outlook dated XXXX.\n\nThe Federal Reserve consumer protection and community development to help ensure a fair and transparent financial services marketplace that benefits all Americans.\n\nFairness and transparency  along with consistency  are guiding principles that inform my perspective on bank supervision and regulation. \n\nTogether, these three elements help to ensure that the supervisory expectations are clear and, in doing so, encourage open communication between banks and supervisors. \n\nAs the Consumer Compliance Outlook (CCO) furthers these goals by providing financial institutions, compliance professionals, and the public with information about compliance with the laws and regulations that protect consumers and support investments in communities.\n\nId share that as the control documents fall into an ever-growing directory of regulations, laws, and advisories, its increasingly difficult for consumers to point to a single control document to gain the banks support staff attention i.e., REG E, once stop the process and guided prescribed steps required, without such assistance its often difficult to expedite consumer concerns.\n\nAmerican Consumers and lawmakers have repeatedly called for common-sense oversight surrounding personal financial data that gives consumers more control.\n\nTowards that end, there needs to be a restriction on what and how financial data can be bought and sold with, by, and through Big Tech firms as they morph into payment giants, demanding restrictive actions and oversight of peer organizations.\n\nIf tech names can show connective on financial transaction, its intimidation of consumers, intended or not, is seemingly insurmountable. So, if you go to the bank and are then returned to the culprit, where do you go for assistance?\n\nAlthough my complaint requires filing with both CFPB and FTC, its difficult to explain the issue without referencing both and correctly the U.S. financial institutions credit card issuers in these complaints the language may vary, however the results convey and enforce uniformly the same.\n\nU.S. Banks will not accept formal filings of complaint against XXXX XXXXXXXX., and thus, no consumer dispute calendar is ever engaged. \n\nAnd recently, just confirming those facts I found can generate a new series of actions by XXXX  about consumer identity and/or financially related inquiries, although a consumer has a known relationship with XXXX.\n\nIt sounds as if the banks refer consumer into XXXX, but the banks support and service personnel advise,   its difficult to contact XXXX by phone (but, easier than the standard long convoluted online client assistance offered by XXXX as a standard service method) so, expect long wait times, and please avoid Mondays under all circumstances. \n\nI wont call names but, one service representative, told the bank didnt accept disputes because all issues involving XXXX had to have XXXX  approval to resolve and only after insisting she offered an alternative.\n\nThe Banks representative asked me to hold. She stated,   however when I return dont refer to me, just explain the circumstances to XXXX, Ill listen silently and when the Apple rep. agrees and disconnects remain on the line and Ill return to insure a credit is issued. \n\nTraditionally, however, the banks representatives simply state questions related to XXXX credits and charges are exclusively handled by XXXX.\n\nThere is one exception, specific to XXXX XXXX deservant of special note, which was a back office engagement.\n\nIn the XXXX XXXX XXXX, on three separate and distinct dates, the Banks automation kicked-off the following advice:\n\nPlease let us know if you or an authorized user recognize the purchase below. The sooner we hear from you, the sooner we can help protect your account from unauthorized purchases.\n\nOn all three (3) the merchant, XXXX for XXXX, each had received an automated DECLINE, the electronic notice further stated.\n\nIf you respond yes, declined transactions will stay declinedAfter responding, try your card again.\n\nI received the same notice on XXXX XXXX and on XXXX XXXX XXXX, at which time I called the Bank to inquiry why Id started receiving these notices. I, like many, dont always use the same card from purchase to purchase or month to month.\n\nBut, I didnt realize these notices were connected to the Banks systematic authorization application and would generate auto-declines on any purchase in the future anytime the card was used and without explanation.\n\nIt was a holiday weekend, as I recall, so it would have been  Wednesday, XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I spoke to a Bank customer service representative, who asked for patience as she transferred the call. \n\nThe authorization rep., wasnt as I recall being in the least concerned for my understanding, which was usual but, it was clear the authorization rep., needed and was going to clear the decline against XXXX at all cost.\n\nWhat made it especially memorable was the fact, he advised the card would stop every time used until the decline was lifted and when I asked why he advised it was the fact the card had a decline for a charge against XXXX? \n\nThe comment, the authorization issue, was so bothersome. I stated it would not be acceptable, and Id need a name and what policy of XXXX XXXX this decision was tied to?\n\nThat was the first time he began searching for work around-s but it was the first time he advised hed insure the card continued to operate.\n\nI can only assume he re-instated or removed it all together because wed agreed Id reach out to advise but, when I researched the one item, it lead to another and quickly became overwhelming.\n\nI cant imagine what a senior or young college-age-consumer or anyone working outside the home could do to manage through the process and maintain employment, or a reasonable family-life or a life, period.\n\nWith no assistance from the Bank I attempted to complete a forensic audit and recap of the credit cards transactions held with XXXX XXXX alone, for XXXX:\n\nLet me walk you through just one of many transactions with one credit card processor.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills my XXXX account twice once for Cloud storage and the second a music subscription.\n\nXXXX RECONCILIATION DOC: of XXXX billing shows both a Music Subscription and Cloud storage charge dated XXXX and XXXX.\n\nREMEMBER XXXX XXXX automated system reports a serial of transaction requiring authorization and in discussion with their authorization support member, basically its agree or every future authorization with be, declined and, the advice offered is I have number to offer for assistance but, staffing is limited (notifications dated XXXX XXXX and XXXX).\n\nMost importantly, no documentation is kicked off or documented and/or disclosures generated.\n\nXXXX SUPPORT is online only, so the consumer is required to figure out the description successfully to get to the end-result. \n\nIf youre unsuccessful, you can ask a chat-bot which offers the same details in an endless loop with no live support available so, can anyone see how this meets the ADA requirements or timelessness standards?\n\nXXXX, XXXX also bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX, for Music Services and a separate generated billing and statement (attached)\n\nXXXX, 1XXXX XXXX  bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# titled BILL CA.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bill XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally TV service.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX accounts once, re-numbered, not continue to report or display so, you need bank assistance to determine long-term damage and access. \n\nAnd whether inadvertent or intentional, the scope and manner of XXXX actions and provide warning of how easily monopolist organizations set-up shop undetected before the American people. \n\nId also add, until this XXXX, Ive never requested access to Music or TV and have never used either, although the XXXX APPS are available but, Ive never downloaded the TV APP. \n\nOne critical point who buys a service which is never used, or the required app to use the service, is never downloaded in a closed loop environment is impossible to use without XXXX authorization.\n\nStorage has been previously sold to XXXX and has now returned to XXXX but, many times at the point of opening, the photo files it holds  immediately degrade until unusable. \n\nEach of these entities (XXXX and XXXX) having platform interest, storage i.e., one picture generations additional opportunities, to edit one generating two files of storage, each picture edit standalone into multiple files driving up storage expenses consumers may or may not be aware, extra document review generates a new file, etc. , thus device, and related entities.\n\nLet alone temporary files, which are maintained without many times consumer awareness so, files only useful to the big 3 or 4 generate endless storage opportunities and up-charges and billings, etc.\n\nXXXX recently began demanding privacy issues of responsibilities and assuming ownership over the phone producer. \n\nSo is the seller the owner, or the manufacturer if XXXX or XXXX, etc., the producer or does every owner thereafter become the privacy owner, selling, and enabled to start new relationships, etc., so where do consumers reclaim privacy data exposed?\n\nAnd since XXXX isnt a traditional entrant, why do they have an interest in your data other than to sell financial materials to others but, clearly these actions set the ground-work of determinations of unwinding products and services unconsidered.\n\nBohemian corporations like XXXX, seem to express and engage in cooperative relationships with peer organizations to pierce traditional oversight measures which weve observed in the U.K. i.e., XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money in so-called, reserve accounts structures. XXXX payment policy states the reasons for putting money on hold include a sudden increase in sales, a shop having only made its first sale recently, the shop committing a policy violation or other risk factors.\n\nSome sellers told the XXXX that two reserve periods were imposed on them consecutively, said XXXX XXXX, XXXX Business reporter, headline XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money, published XXXX XXXX XXXX.\n\nBut, theres a much larger issue which never consolidated by oversight there are direct sub-sets all tied to financial transactions and services which combined directly disadvantage not only small businesses but, consumers who are easily overwhelmed not only by the direct correlation but, all the associated and unseen correlations, continues XXXX.\n\nXXXX is an online marketplace that allows independent sellers to set up their own shop. It specialises in bespoke items, handicrafts or things not usually available in High Street shops.\n\nXXXX XXXX. is a US-based company which trades its shares on the XXXX XXXX XXXX in New York, where it listed its stock in XXXX. XXXX shares currently trading at XXXX each - a far cry from an all-time high of XXXX during the Covid pandemic in XXXX.\n\nIts biggest shareholders are major financial institutions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX.\n\nThe company is led by chief executive XXXX XXXX who has worked at an eclectic mix of businesses such as online auction site XXXX, the internet chat firm XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX. He has been chief executive since XXXX.\n\nIt was originally founded in XXXX by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX who started the business from XXXX XXXX Brooklyn apartment. None of them remain with the firm.\n\nThe CFPB must advance quickly plans to begin the tactical widening issues  of rule-making that would subject XXXX XXXX XXXX and others to supervision as it examines how companies monetize data that and continues an unfair assault on consumers.\n\nAnd even with items highlighted the list unseen considerations continues consumers and small business are assaults daily including, independent Internet companies affect anyone as consumers are tracked online through XXXX and other browsers, given the ability without oversight to freely, come and go-to browser comes through search engine the playground of the Big 3 or 4 i.e., XXXX, etc. with each browser uniquely given comprehensive privacy protection and controls but, in protection of whos interest?\n\nTens of millions of consumer are or arent  protected not at their behest everyday online activities, searching browsers, email, on the unlimited platforms of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX\n\nBut, whats clear, American CORPs have increasingly jumped the moon and time is ticking, and not on the side of U.S. consumers. \n\nHow XXXX has accessed and kept up-to-date posting against numerous MasterCard/VISA account numbers, sometime able to access closed accounts which have been closed for fraud activities.\n\nReporting any fraud generally receives no follow-up most consumers would state but, an account closure, new card and account generated. \n\nAny unauthorized transactions until recently, when I found multiple transactions from a Tech Giant, which were reversed over months and no other action taken.\n\nIt also points out the varieties methods for MasterCard/VISA accounts are recorded and records-kept by banks, some disappear such as XXXX XXXX systemically goes through and removes accounts so, how does a client further identify all activity and does the FED have any accounting standard?\n\nAnd from a safety and liability stand-point how many accounts are reconciled by a certified public auditing and accounting corporation perspective?\n\nAnd if XXXX is off the reservation, how does such measurement impact bank stability overall today and into the future?\n\nXXXX will pay XXXX to resolve harassment charges after top executives sent live spiders and cockroaches to two bloggers who wrote critical articles about the company.\n\nSenior staff at the US tech firm launched a petrifying harassment campaign against XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, a couple from Massachusetts who run the e-commerce Bytes blog.\n\nToday its impossible to say what wont be done in the steeple decline of civility, during COVID-19 and the housing crisis who didnt financial services CEO, swearing at American consumers and stockholders?\n\nExecutives were upset with some of the coverage on the blog and said the writers had to be burned down.\n\nBesides a box of live spiders and cockroaches, the couple was sent a funeral wreath, a bloody pig mask, and a book about surviving the loss of a spouse.\n\nIna Steiner received bizarre and sometimes threatening messages on Twitter purportedly from groups such as an irritable bowel syndrome patient support group and the Communist Party of the United States.\n\nThe pairs home address was also posted online alongside invitations for strangers to attend sexual encounters, yard sales and parties, while the employees made plans to break into their garage and place a GPS tracker in their car.\n\nThe XXXX said the harassment had a damaging and permanent impact, on them emotionally, psychologically, physically, reputationally, and financially.\n\nOver three years after the employees were prosecuted, the US Justice Department has now charged XXXX with stalking, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, said XXXX XXXX of the Telegraph under the headline, XXXX ordered to pay couple XXXX after senior executives sent bloody pig mask and live cockroaches, published XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX  acting as Massachusetts US Attorney, said: XXXX engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct.The companys employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the XXXX brand.\n\nThe need for stronger, sustained and long-term oversight is clear and each case filed takes the marketplace further and further down the rabbits hole but, neither commitment nor oversight shows true interest in resolving such acts, if it were so, the record would show success but, it doesnt because neither institution public nor private is focused on the American peoples interest to the financial services great demise.      \n\nThus when I advise it appears XXXX has access to credit card numbers and account unrestricted and even further credit reporting agencies, all form a web-connection with concern, add to the team MasterCard, Visa who are exclusive unrestricted parties and American consumer are basically unprotected victims awaiting further victimization in a pool of sharks.\n\nIt may not seem the same but, it is when XXXX bills you repeatedly for the same services and holds hostage any photos or documents refusing to save or hold documents and refining the storage held and doing this while having been paid for the service, shows no controls in place i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullnotifications, actions, dated 1XXXX XXXX, etc. XXXX  shows no controls or correlation, continuing to forward notifications for many devices from one record which appears as its organized to overwhelm clients, taking lazy revenue dollars against the consumer and doubling or tripling revenue, i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullBecause youve exceeded your storage plan, dated XXXX, etc.  \n\nIn addition, XXXX has established direct connection links so, even passing and reviewing monthly transactions generations Thank you for viewing purchase details associated, and sets new parameters which can convey intended or not an implied threat and why does XXXX need a live-connection if this is the same service provided by US banks?\n\nNotifications dated XXXX XXXX\n\nIf nothing else is true, each additional touch conveys exceptional status between U.S. banks, which are regulated with XXXX right, wrong, or indifferent?\n\nIt creates a status intended or not, which is advantageous to XXXX alone and further, oversight and regulatory understanding and complexity safety. \n\nThe most important rule making for the CFPB in XXXX will be the Tech Giants\n\nIn the absence of Congressional actions only the FED-regulators and the U.S. Courts are ability to exercise some controls and corporations and financial services are already heading back to the U.S. Courts to destabilize the marketplace, this only an example of the liability and regulatory environmental landscape, collapsing onto American consumers.\n\nWorse than the conscious destabilizing action are unconscious impacts when corporations extend pressures as the parents seen in the last Congressional hearing with XXXX XXXX, it can become immobilizing to the human psyche. XXXX  walks out feeling put upon but, hes wrong just as financial services, internet service providers and the Federal government are the civilization fails whenever every day for We the People is the story of David and Goliath, Congress plays a continued game as it allows this issues unaddressed to go to the U.S. Courts or become Executive Orders.\n\nIncreasingly, its clear, its not a matter of whos watching the hens house, theyre busy watching from XXXX, CO no longer concerned American consumer will find, discover or take rath but, its foolish to believe your actions are invisible everyones replaceable and theres always one born every minute, even smarter oh and its a presidential election year, as the fryers hearing up on bad behavior.\n\nFinally, as XXXX XXXX, the FED and regulatory bring a new merger for consideration, almost like the XXXX XXXX), which the FED brought forward and ultimately become XXXX XXXX, which continues to bleed consumer confidence and legal actions its clear Justice needs a much larger and better partner than the FED who seems to have lost its oversight expertise.     \n\nIt knows until the law addresses the People intent, its basically waiting for appeal, a second bite at the same issues upon appeal and its wrong, We the People depend on righteousness to prevail, known.\n\nThank you in advance for your guidance and assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-19T22:56:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"06066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8576967","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-03-19T21:49:41.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Fairness and transparency  along with consistency  are guiding principles that <em>inform</em> my perspective on bank supervision and regulation. \n\nTogether, these three elements help to ensure that the supervisory expectations are clear and, in doing so, encourage open communication between banks and supervisors."]},"sort":[4.2892704,"8576967"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7703639","_score":4.1982765,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX To whom it may concern : I was reviewing my credit report for accuracy and found the following errors on my credit report. \n\nAccording to the following FCRA Rules/Guidelines I have identified the following statues that the inaccurate reporting on my credit report violates as it is reporting inaccurate information. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Engelhardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\nCompliance Procedures Section 607 ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users. Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 605 [ 1681c ] and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604 [ 1681b ] of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 604 [ 1681b ] of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \n( c ) Disclosure of consumer reports by users allowed. A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report.\n\n( d ) Notice to Users and Furnishers of Information ( 1 ) Notice requirement. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to any person ( A ) who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the agency with respect to any consumer ; or ( B ) to whom a consumer report is provided by the agency. \na notice of such person 's responsibilities under this title. \n( 2 ) Content of notice. The Bureau shall prescribe the content of notices under paragraph ( 1 ), and a consumer reporting agency shall follow this subsection if it provides a notice under paragraph ( 1 ) that is substantially similar to the Bureau prescription under this paragraph.\n\n( e ) Procurement of Consumer Report for Resale ( 1 ) Disclosure. A person may not procure a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) unless the person discloses to the consumer reporting agency that originally furnishes the report ( A ) the identity of the end-user of the report ( or information ) ; and ( B ) each permissible purpose under section 604 [ 1681b ] for which the report is furnished to the end-user of the report ( or information ).\n\n( 2 ) Responsibilities of procurers for resale. A person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) shall ( A ) establish and comply with reasonable procedures designed to ensure that the report ( or information ) is resold by the person only for a purpose for which the report may be furnished under section 604 [ 1681b ], including by requiring that each person to which the report ( or information ) is resold and that resells or provides the report ( or information ) to any other person ( i ) identifies each end user of the resold report ( or information ). \n( ii ) certifies each purpose for which the report ( or information ) will be used ; and ( iii ) certifies that the report ( or information ) will be used for no other purpose ; and ( B ) before reselling the report, make reasonable efforts to verify the identifications and certifications made under subparagraph ( A ).\n\n( 3 ) Resale of consumer report to a federal agency or department. Notwithstanding paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ), a person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) shall not disclose the identity of the end-user of the report under paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) if ( A ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government which procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer concerned to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) ) ; and ( B ) the agency or department certifies in writing to the person reselling the report that nondisclosure is necessary to protect classified information, or the safety of persons employed by or contracting with or undergoing investigation for work or contracting with the agency or department.\n\n15 USC 1666 Correction of Billing Error ( a ) WRITTEN NOTICE BY OBLIGOR TO CREDITOR ; TIME FOR AND CONTENTS OF NOTICE ; PROCEDURE UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE BY CREDITOR If a creditor, within sixty days after having transmitted to an obligor a statement of the obligors account in connection with an extension of consumer credit, receives at the address disclosed under section 1637 ( b ) ( 10 ) of this title a written notice ( other than notice on a payment stub or other payment medium supplied by the creditor if the creditor so stipulates with the disclosure required under section 1637 ( a ) ( 7 ) of this title ) from the obligor in which the obligor ( 1 ) sets forth or otherwise enables the creditor to identify the name and account number ( if any ) of the obligor, ( 2 ) indicates the obligors belief that the statement contains a billing error and the amount of such billing error, and ( 3 ) sets forth the reasons for the obligors belief ( to the extent applicable ) that the statement contains a billing error, the creditor shall, unless the obligor has, after giving such written notice and before the expiration of the time limits herein specified, agreed that the statement was correct ( A ) not later than thirty days after the receipt of the notice, send a written acknowledgment thereof to the obligor, unless the action required in subparagraph ( B ) is taken within such thirty-day period, and ( B ) not later than two complete billing cycles of the creditor ( in no event later than ninety days ) after the receipt of the notice and prior to taking any action to collect the amount, or any part thereof, indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) either ( i ) make appropriate corrections in the account of the obligor, including the crediting of any finance charges on amounts erroneously billed, and transmit to the obligor a notification of such corrections and the creditors explanation of any change in the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( XXXX ) and, if any such change is made and the obligor so requests, copies of documentary evidence of the obligors indebtedness ; or ( ii ) send a written explanation or clarification to the obligor, after having conducted an investigation, setting forth to the extent applicable the reasons why the creditor believes the account of the obligor was correctly shown in the statement and, upon request of the obligor, provide copies of documentary evidence of the obligors indebtedness. In the case of a billing error where the obligor alleges that the creditors billing statement reflects goods not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of the transaction, a creditor XXXX not construe such amount to be correctly shown unless he determines that such goods were actually delivered, mailed, or otherwise sent to the obligor and provides the obligor with a statement of such determination. \nAfter complying with the provisions of this subsection with respect to an alleged billing error, a creditor has no further responsibility under this section if the obligor continues to make substantially the same allegation with respect to such error. \n( b ) BILLING ERROR For the purpose of this section, a billing error consists of any of the following : ( 1 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit which was not made to the obligor or, if made, was not in the amount reflected on such statement.\n\n( 2 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit for which the obligor requests additional clarification including documentary evidence thereof.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by the obligor or his designee or not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of a transaction.\n\n( 4 ) The creditors failure to reflect properly on a statement a payment made by the obligor or a credit issued to the obligor.\n\n( 5 ) A computation error or similar error of an accounting nature of the creditor on a statement.\n\n( 6 ) Failure to transmit the statement required under section 1637 ( b ) of this title to the last address of the obligor which has been disclosed to the creditor, unless that address was furnished less than twenty days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement is required.\n\n( 7 ) Any other error described in regulations of the Bureau.\n\n( c ) ACTION BY CREDITOR TO COLLECT AMOUNT OR ANY PART THEREOF REGARDED BY OBLIGOR TO BE A BILLING ERROR For the purposes of this section, action to collect the amount, or any part thereof, indicated by an obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) does not include the sending of statements of account, which may include finance charges on amounts in dispute, to the obligor following written notice from the obligor as specified under subsection ( a ), if ( 1 ) the obligors account is not restricted or closed because of the failure of the obligor to pay the amount indicated under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ), and ( 2 ) the creditor indicates the payment of such amount is not required pending the creditors compliance with this section.\n\nNothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any action by a creditor to collect any amount which has not been indicated by the obligor to contain a billing error.\n\n( d ) RESTRICTING OR CLOSING BY CREDITOR OF ACCOUNT REGARDED BY OBLIGOR TO CONTAIN A BILLING ERROR Pursuant to regulations of the Bureau, a creditor operating an open end consumer credit plan may not, prior to the sending of the written explanation or clarification required under paragraph ( B ) ( ii ), restrict or close an account with respect to which the obligor has indicated pursuant to subsection ( a ) that he believes such account to contain a billing error solely because of the obligors failure to pay the amount indicated to be in error. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit a creditor from applying against the credit limit on the obligors account the amount indicated to be in error.\n\n( e ) EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS BY CREDITOR Any creditor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or section 1666a of this title forfeits any right to collect from the obligor the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ) of this section, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed {$50.00}.\n\n609 Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] ( a ) Information on file ; sources ; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681h ], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer : ( 1 ) All information in the consumer 's file at the time of the request, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. ( 2 ) The sources of the information ; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed : Provided, that in the event an action is brought under this title, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought. ( 3 ) ( A ) Identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 607 ( e ) ( 1 ) [ 1681e ] ) that procured a consumer report ( i ) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made ; or ( ii ) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made. ( B ) An identification of a person under subparagraph ( A ) shall include ( i ) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name ( written in full ) under which such person conducts business ; and ( ii ) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person. ( C ) Subparagraph ( A ) does not apply if -- ( i ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government that procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer to whom the report relates to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) ) ; and ( ii ) the head of the agency or department makes a written finding as prescribed under section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ). ( 4 ) The dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks upon which is based any adverse characterization of the consumer, included in the file at the time of the disclosure. ( 5 ) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer. ( b ) Exempt information. The requirements of subsection ( a ) of this section respecting the disclosure of sources of information and the recipients of consumer reports do not apply to information received or consumer reports furnished prior to the effective date of this title except to the extent that the matter involved is contained in the files of the consumer reporting agency on that date. ( c ) Summary of rights required to be included with disclosure. ( 1 ) Summary of rights. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section ( A ) a written summary of all of the rights that the consumer has under this title ; and ( B ) in the case of a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis, a toll-free telephone number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours. ( 2 ) Specific items required to be included. The summary of rights required under paragraph ( 1 ) shall include ( A ) a brief description of this title and all rights of consumers under this title ; ( B ) an explanation of how the consumer may exercise the rights of the consumer under this title ; ( C ) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this title and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency ; ( D ) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general to learn of those rights ; and ( E ) a statement that 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 [ 1681c ] or can not be verified. ( 3 ) Form of summary of rights. For purposes of this subsection and any disclosure by a consumer reporting agency required under this title with respect to consumers ' rights, the Federal Trade Commission ( after consultation with each Federal agency referred to in section 621 ( b ) [ 1681s ] ) shall prescribe the form and content of any such disclosure of the rights of consumers required under this title. A consumer reporting agency shall be in compliance with this subsection if it provides disclosures under paragraph ( 1 ) that are substantially similar to the Federal Trade Commission prescription under this paragraph. ( 4 ) Effectiveness. No disclosures shall be required under this subsection until the date on which the Federal Trade Commission prescribes the form and content of such disclosures under paragraph ( 3 ).\n\nAfter a debt is canceled, the creditor may send you a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt showing the amount of cancellation of debt and the date of cancellation, among other things. If you received a Form 1099-C showing incorrect information, contact the creditor to make corrections. For example, if the creditor is continuing to try to collect the debt after sending you a Form 1099-C, the creditor may not have canceled the debt and, as a result, you may not have income from a canceled debt. You should verify with the creditor your specific situation. Your responsibility to report the taxable amount of canceled debt as income on your tax return for the year when the cancellation occurs doesn't change whether or not you receive a correct Form 1099-C.\n\nI attest to receiving no 1099-C on any of the Charge-Offs listed on my account, based on Topic No. 431 of the Internal Revenue Service Guidelines and find these charge-offs erroneous.\n\nBased on MO Law the statue of limitations to collect on debt Based on the Statues outlined above and strictly enforced by the FCRA I am requesting the following accounts listed below be removed/deleted due to inaccurate reporting against my SSN on my credit report. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is reporting inaccurate as XXXX has a High Balance listed of {$930.00}, Experian has {$0.00} and XXXX shows {$550.00}? Dates of last activity are listed incorrectly, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the only one showing a closed date for this account of XXXX  when XXXX and XXXX show none??? How can there be a closed date of XXXX when it is showing last activity was XXXX for one Credit Bureau? The account type is mismatched for all 3 credit bureaus, XXXX has account type listed as Bank Credit Cards, Experian is listed as Mortgage Companies/Finance and XXXX National Credit Card Companies ? How can it be a Credit Card and Mortgage I dont have a mortgage I am not a homeowner. Experian has it listed as Charged Off And last activity on the account was XX/XX/XXXX but still reporting as Charge-off as of XXXX  This information is unverifiable and request it be deleted immediately as it is reporting inaccurately against my credit report, delete this item. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is reporting incorrectly because XXXX is reporting a balance of {$1900.00}, Experian {$0.00} XXXX And XXXX {$0.00} XXXX The last dates of activity do not correlate together XXXX/Experian reports XXXX  and XXXX is reporting XXXX. The account type does not match, XXXX states Misc Banks, Experian says XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX indicates All Banks, which is not accurate at all across the board. This account says Charge-off and is still reporting a balance. The last payment noted by XXXX XXXX XXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX how can a last payment be received in 3 different months? \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The balance is not consistent, XXXX is reporting {$970.00}, Experian {$0.00}, and XXXX is {$970.00}. The date of last activity is incorrect, XXXX is reporting XXXX, Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The account is Charged off and still showing in Experian that it is Charge-off XXXX, but the account closed date indicates XXXX how is it still reporting a charge-off date after XXXX? The account type doesnt match XXXX shows Miscellaneous Banks, Experian states Bank Credit Cards XXXX and XXXX indicates National Credit Card Companies XXXX These errors need to be deleted.\n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The balance being reported by XXXX XXXX {$710.00}, Experian {$0.00}, and XXXX {$710.00}, not the same for all three, how if the information is the same being reported? The account type is not accurate XXXX has Miscellaneous Banks, Experian has Bank Credit Cards, and XXXX has National Credit Card Company, what type of account is this with 3 different sub categories indicating 3 different types. Account reads as being charged-off but still showing charge off XXXX when the account listed it closed XXXX, these need to be deleted due to inaccuracy. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  The account type is inaccurate aligned with the last date of activity reported for XXXX XXXX Experian XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, when did the account close is under question with 3 different dates. XXXX list the account type as Miscellaneous Finance XXXX and Experian Personal Loan Companies, this makes it unclear as to what type of debt this is, is it a loan or financing? Last payment received is reporting wrong XXXX/Experian indicate XXXX  and XXXX indicates XXXX, when was the last payment received. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX/Experian only ones showing a balance of {$1300.00} XXXX is not reporting a balance. The date last verified is XXXX by XXXX only, ExperianXXXX are not reporting anything/ no dates listed at all. Dates of last activity are not matching XXXX has a date of XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Experian XXXX  and XXXX has a date of XXXX how can the activity over a 6mo span difference, the information is not factual. Account type displays a discrepancy, ExperianXXXX shows Personal Loan Companies and XXXX has it listed as Sales Financing, is this financing or a loan based on this information and the account shows Charge-off XXXX  and account closed listed under XXXX as XXXX/Experian are not reporting a closed date of XXXX if it closed approx. 6 mo ago how is it showing charge off still XXXXXXXX  This errors are a clear indication this needs to be deleted. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX has a balance posted of {$1900.00}, Experian {$0.00} XXXX and XXXX is showing {$2600.00}, how is this valid reporting 3 different account balances? The dates of last activity do not match XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the activity spans over a 10 month time frame for an account this hardly seems accurately reported. The account is showing charged off, but still reflecting a variety of different balances and showing a charge off XXXX when the last account shows it closed XXXX  how is this even possible, due to these discrepancies this information needs to be deleted. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I show the account as being charged off and shows a balance of {$16000.00} I have never had a loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX  I own my vehicle this is a error and the previous car was totaled in a accident and sold, How can I sell a vehicle I owe on, I have proof through my insurance claim the vehicle was sold, and no lienholder/lien on the title listed as Texas Dealer Solutions this is a fraudulent charge. Delete this.\n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is reporting 3 different account numbers XXXX XXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which account is correctly listed this is not correct reporting. Each has a different balance, XXXX/Experian {$1200.00} and XXXX {$780.00}, the account balances dont match neither do any of the information which clearly indicates erroneous errors. The account is showing Charge-off and still reflecting a balance which is incorrect reporting as well as the date the account was closed shows XXXX and still ExperianXXXX are reporting a Charge off eff XXXX, this is another example of incorrect reporting on these accounts. Delete this account due to inaccuracies. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The account is listed as a charge off with a closed date of N/A but still reporting charge-off XXXX but date of last activity is XXXX, also as this account is a debt buyer and should The name of the creditor The amount owed That you can dispute the debt That if you dont dispute the debt within 30 days the debt collector will assume the debt is valid That if you dispute the debt in writing within 30 days the debt collector will provide verification of the debt That if you request the name and address of the original creditor within 30 days, if different from the current creditor, the debt collector will provide you that information. This account is only reporting to Experian. This account is listed 2x under the same account # with the same balances {$880.00} and This inconsistent display of information requires an immediate removal. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The account has a balance of {$1000.00} and is only reporting to XXXX XXXX but the account status is still listed as Open. The payment status says charge off, so how can a account be Open and charge-off at the same time, while still reporting a balance these errors are major not to mention payment amount, last payment, term length, past due amount, account type, payment frequency and credit limit are all missing from the reporting. This is inaccurate reporting and needs to be removed. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is only reporting a balance of {$910.00} to XXXX only and no other credit bureau XXXX The account still shows open but indicates it is charged off under payment status. How can an account be an Open charge off with a balance. This is inaccurate reporting and needs to be removed from my report due to inaccuracies. And is outside of statute of limitations for debt collection in state of MO, delete this inaccurate reporting.\n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This account has not point of contact as to whom this debt belongs to and is only reporting to XXXX it is simply a balance for {$700.00} and outside of MO state law for collection as the account is over 7years old. This account does not meet FCRA to be listed as a creditor remove this due to inaccurate reporting. \n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The account has a balance of {$1900.00} AND {$1000.00}, but the account status is still listed This account needs to be removed as it is reporting inaccurately from a debt-buyer per FDCPA, I am writing in regards to the above-referenced debt to inform you that I am disputing this debt. Please verify the debt as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. \nI am disputing this debt because I do not owe it. \nBecause I am disputing this debt, you should not report it to the credit reporting agencies. If you have already reported it, please contact the credit reporting agencies, inform them that the debt is disputed, and ask them to delete it from my credit report. Reporting information that you know to be inaccurate, or failing to report information correctly, violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \nFinally, please note that I do not wish to receive further telephone calls or letters concerning this debt that I do not owe to your client. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires you to respect this request. See 15 U.S.C.1692 ( c ).\n\nI have not supplied proof under the Doctrine of Estoppel by silence, Englehardt vs. Gravens ( mo ) 281 SW 715, 719, I presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact therefore exists. \n\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. \nThe items listed above need to be thoroughly re-investigated and removed due to inaccurate reporting on all Accounts listed above and updated copy of my credit report submitted to me with the corrected updates once these accounts have been moved. \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-17T02:11:41.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"64138","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7703639","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-10-17T01:58:05.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Old information reappears or never goes away"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account type displays a discrepancy, ExperianXXXX shows Personal Loan Companies and XXXX has it listed as Sales Financing, is this financing or a loan based on this information and the account shows Charge-off XXXX  and account <em>closed</em> listed under XXXX as XXXX/Experian are not reporting a <em>closed</em> date of XXXX if it <em>closed</em> approx. 6 mo ago how is it showing charge off still XXXXXXXX  This errors are a clear indication this needs to be deleted."]},"sort":[4.1982765,"7703639"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":14,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":14}]}},"product":{"doc_count":14,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, 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":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":14,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Old information reappears or never goes away","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Don't agree with the fees charged","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":14,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":14}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":14,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":10},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":14,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":14}]}},"company":{"doc_count":14,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Academy Mortgage Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"ECMC GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":14,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"IN","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":14,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":6},{"key":"Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":14,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}