{"took":102,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":5,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13950068","_score":11.950297,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX. Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThis complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. XXXX procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with XXXX law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. \n\nIn XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty XXXX become. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX Bank, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC XXXX XXXX is for this complaint is : XXXX. \n\n________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent Federal limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file.\n\nUnder federal law, no derogatory information may be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported \" Credit Line Suspended '' ( CLS ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing CLS past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in Federal Court. \nThe Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported CLS derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX due solely to the presence of the XXXX remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX. \nAfter over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX, I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. \nImmediately after the CLS remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the CLS was the sole derogatory factor. \nXXXX has utilized its CLS internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. \nCRAs themselves have acknowledged the XXXX remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : TransUnion confirms the CLS remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. TransUnion specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. \nXXXX, upon removing the CLS remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the CLS remark.\n\nSeparate and apart from the CLS remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. \nIn reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a CLS remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement 1 : CLS Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts \" A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the CLS remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. \nXXXX has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. \nApplicable Federal Law Violations : 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent.\n\n2. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation.\n\n3. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.\n\n4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law XXXX. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. \nApplicable Florida State Law Violations : 1. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204 Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit. \n2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Fla. Stat. 559.72 ( 9 ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ). \n________________________________________ Statement 2 : CLS Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. \nIn reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. \nOver 30 days passed with no resolution. \nI was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. \nOnce the CLS remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as Line of Credit account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. \nInstead of following these procedures, XXXX used the CLS remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of CLS in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws. \nAdditional Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedNetCredit instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition.\n\nRetaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. \n________________________________________ Statement 3 : CLS Reporting for Internal Credit Limit Exceedance \" Since Nadias account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXX justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. \nIn fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just XXXX months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. \nApplicable Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful.\n\nFDUTPA Reporting such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. \n________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX XXXX  XXXX using its Utah-based charter to circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXX XXXX, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes 687.03 : Usury limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. \nFees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. \nThis model is increasingly identified as a \" rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and OCC and the State of Florida.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-07T17:22:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13950068","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-07T17:21:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their response not only <em>fails</em> to <em>justify</em> its <em>actions</em>, but it <em>also</em> <em>actually</em> <em>admits</em> to <em>engaging</em> in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws."]},"sort":[11.950297,"13950068"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13950880","_score":11.891451,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX  in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThis complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. Collection procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with Federal law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. \n\nIn XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty may become. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX XXXX, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC Case Number is for this complaint is : XXXX. \n\n________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX  s reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXXXXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX  willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX  has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent Federal limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file.\n\nUnder federal law, no derogatory information may be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported \" Credit Line Suspended '' ( CLS ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing CLS past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in Federal Court. \nThe Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported CLS derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX due solely to the presence of the CLS remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX \nAfter over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. \nImmediately after the CLS remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the CLS was the sole derogatory factor. \nXXXX  has utilized its CLS internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. \nCRAs themselves have acknowledged the CLS remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : XXXX confirms the CLS remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. XXXX specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. \nXXXX, upon removing the CLS remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the CLS remark.\n\nSeparate and apart from the CLS remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. \nIn reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a CLS remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement 1 : CLS Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts \" A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the CLS remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. \nXXXX  has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. \nApplicable Federal Law Violations : 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent.\n\n2. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation.\n\n3. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.\n\n4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law 5. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. \nApplicable Florida State Law Violations : 1. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204 Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit.\n\n2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Fla. Stat. 559.72 ( 9 ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ).\n\n________________________________________ Statement 2 : CLS Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. \nIn reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. \nOver 30 days passed with no resolution. \nI was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. \nOnce the CLS remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as Line of Credit account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. \nInstead of following these procedures, XXXX used the CLS remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of CLS in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws.\n\nAdditional Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. \nFCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedXXXX instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated. \nFCRA 1681e ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition. \nRetaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. \n________________________________________ Statement XXXX : CLS Reporting for Internal Credit Limit Exceedance \" Since XXXX account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXXt justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. \nIn fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just five months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. \nApplicable Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful.\n\nFDUTPA Reporting such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. \n________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX  operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX its Utah-based charter XXXX circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes XXXX : XXXX limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. \nFees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. \nThis model is increasingly identified as a \" rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and XXXX and the State of Florida.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-07T17:22:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13950880","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-07T16:43:08.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their response not only <em>fails</em> to <em>justify</em> its <em>actions</em>, but it <em>also</em> <em>actually</em> <em>admits</em> to <em>engaging</em> in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXXXXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws."]},"sort":[11.891451,"13950880"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13950067","_score":11.891451,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint Filing Against XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX. Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. \n\nThis complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. Collection procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with XXXX law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. \n\nIn XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty may become. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX XXXX, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC XXXX XXXX is for this complaint is : XXXX. \n\n________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent XXXX limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file. \nUnder federal law, no derogatory information XXXX be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported \" XXXX XXXX Suspended '' ( XXXX ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing XXXX past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in XXXX XXXX. \nThe Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported XXXX derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the presence of the XXXX remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX. \nAfter over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX, I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. \nImmediately after the XXXX remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the XXXX was the sole derogatory factor. \nXXXX has utilized its XXXX internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. \nCRAs themselves have acknowledged the XXXX remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : TransUnion confirms the XXXX remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. TransUnion specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. \nXXXX, upon removing the XXXX remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the XXXX remark. \nSeparate and apart from the XXXX remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. \nIn reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a XXXX remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement XXXX : XXXX Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts \" A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the XXXX remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. \nXXXX has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Violations : XXXX. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent. \nXXXX. FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law XXXX. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. \nXXXX Florida XXXX XXXX Violations : XXXX. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit. \nXXXX. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ). \n________________________________________ Statement XXXX : XXXX Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. \nIn reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. \nOver 30 days passed with no resolution. \nI was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. \nOnce the XXXX remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as XXXX of XXXX account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. \nInstead of following these procedures, XXXX used the XXXX remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of XXXX in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws. \nAdditional Violations : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. \nFCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedNetCredit instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated. \nFCRA XXXX ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition. \nRetaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. \n________________________________________ Statement XXXX : XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \" Since Nadias account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXX justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. \nIn fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. \nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just XXXX months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. \nApplicable Violations : FCRA XXXX and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful. \nXXXX XXXX such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. \n________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX its Utah-based charter XXXX circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXX Bank, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes XXXX : XXXX limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. \nFees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. \nThis model is increasingly identified as a \" rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and XXXX and XXXX State of Florida.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-07T17:22:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13950067","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-07T17:21:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their response not only <em>fails</em> to <em>justify</em> its <em>actions</em>, but it <em>also</em> <em>actually</em> <em>admits</em> to <em>engaging</em> in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. \nXXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws."]},"sort":[11.891451,"13950067"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4614752","_score":8.779802,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"IMPROPER BANKING PRACTICES AND PERHAPS UNLAWFUL ACTIONS It is my belief that, had the CFPB properly conducted an investigation in this matter, it would have become apparent that Synchrony Bank has engaged and continues to engage in improper and perhaps unlawful actions, with the intent to possess and retain money that is not rightfully property of Synchrony Bank or is acting in support others to possess money not rightfully their : 1. In XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, Synchrony Bank accepted money ( See attachment Pages # 1- # 3 ; a total of {$470.00} ) from XXXX XXXX by ACH, that was issued to them on my behalf ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), for the express purpose of satisfying an outstanding debt with a commercial business, i.e. ; XXXX XXXX. After accepting that money from XXXX XXXX, Synchrony Bank, their customer XXXX XXXX or other unnamed and unknown customers ( it is my understanding the XXXX XXXX XXXX had some interest in or banking connection to XXXX XXXX at this time ), did not apply that money to my outstanding balance, and failing that, did not take steps to return the money to its rightful owner, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n2. Following this failure to complete the transactions, Synchrony Bank stonewalled inquiries from XXXX XXXX  and from myself ( XXXX XXXX ) to recover this money. ( See attachments Page # 4 and # 5 from XXXX XXXX. ) I also contacted Synchrony at this time and despite multiple promises, they never responded to me. They delayed actions by asking me to obtain documents from XXXX XXXX  that they knew were not banking industry required documents. \n\n3. In furtherance of their improper and perhaps illegal behavior, Synchrony Bank and other parties, have continued to stonewall attempts to provide complete and proper accounting for the status of the diverted funds by creating false records, including false transactions on false dates and proving misleading or false information to everyone involved, including the CFPB and the PA Attorney Generals Office. For example : you will note that to date, Synchrony Bank has never denied receiving the money in question from XXXX XXXX. They have only stated repeatedly that they can not locate it. \n\n4. To further their improper and perhaps illegal behavior, Synchrony Bank has created false records of purchase transactions ( See attachment Page # 10 ) and created a false paper trail of misleading and contradictory letters to justify their actions or their failure to act properly to resolve this matter.\n\n5. In order to further their improper and perhaps illegal behavior and create additional pressure on myself ( Mr. XXXX ), at some time in XXXX of XXXX Synchrony bank re-opened Mr. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account, which Mr. XXXX had demanded be closed in XX/XX/XXXX. ( See Attachments Pages # 6, # 7 & # 8 ). The account was closed and all credit agencies were notified of this closure. However, during the dispute of this matter, Synchrony Bank has cited to these agencies that Mr. XXXX is delinquent in making payments on the disputed account, to which Synchrony Bank is also applying interest. \n\n6. Since I have disputed Synchronys right to my money, I ( Mr. XXXX XXXX have been financial damaged by Synchrony who has taken improper actions, falsely notifying all of the credit agencies that this account is still open and delinquent, despite my lawful dispute of Synchronys improper and perhaps illegal actions. \n\nEXPECTED CONSUMER ACTIONS TO RESOLVE In defense of my ( Mr. XXXX XXXX actions in this matter, if CFPB had fully investigated, it would have learned that XXXX XXXX  provide Mr. XXXX with transaction records which XXXX claims proves that Synchrony Bank received the initial {$470.00}, on behalf of XXXX XXXX ( see attachments Pages # 1 - # 3 ). These documents have been provided to XXXX XXXX and to Synchrony Bank by both XXXX XXXX  and by Mr. XXXX, on multiple occasions since XXXX of XXXX. \n\nYou can see by the transaction records and the two monthly statement documents, that I ( Mr. XXXX ) have proven that the money was removed from my XXXX XXXX  account for the express purpose of paying XXXX XXXX. After the money was removed from my account and sent to Synchrony Bank, I have no ability to see or to know what happening with the money or to the XXXX ACH sent to Synchrony Bank. XXXX XXXX  has provided the transaction record, that they claim proves the money was turned over to the Synchrony Bank. It seems logical that since XXXX XXXX  has provided proof of its claim that the money was sent by ACH to Synchrony Bank, the burden should logically fall to Synchrony Bank to either refute this claim with proof or accept that Synchrony Bank received the money and the money is somewhere lost in the Synchrony System or perhaps wrongly given to one of its customers.\n\nIf CFPB were to have actually investigated and the burden of proof had shifted to Synchrony Bank, then CFPB should logically expect Synchrony Bank to prove that the bank never received the money, or if it did receive the money, that it applied the money to Mr. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account, or determined that there was a problem with the two ACH transactions, which should have caused Synchrony Bank to returned the money to XXXX XXXX. In any event, CFPB must expect the burden to shift at some point to Synchrony Bank to prove that it did not wrongfully receive, keep or misapply the money to some other entity besides XXXX XXXX. \n\nIf the CFPB had investigated, they would see that despite significant correspondence from Synchrony Bank, the bank has never denied receiving the money, but continues to make self-serving statements like they can not determine the status of the money. In fact, when contacted by XXXX XXXX  in my presence, on or about XX/XX/XXXX of XXXX, the Synchrony Bank representatXXXX XXXX  XXXX, who I learned lives and works from her home in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), admitted that she could see the initial transaction, but she needed to investigate where the money ended up within the Synchrony Banking system. \n\nSynchrony Bank has never denied receiving the money from XXXX XXXX. However, Synchrony has failed to legally support its right, or the right of other parties, who may have received the money from Synchrony, to retain or recover the {$470.00} in question.\n\nFurthermore, Synchrony Bank has failed to support their legal right to re-open a credit account in my name ( Mr. XXXX ), which was legally closed at my request. Furthermore, they have not established a legal premise that would allow them to falsify transactions ( See Attachment Page # 10 ) to suggest that they are entitled to the {$470.00} in question or any interest that they are charging for these funds. It would seem logical that without my express permission, no credit account can be re-established and no false debt can be created. If that were not true, then all banks would be engaging in these activities to generate funds. XXXX This action seems to be the same illegal action for which the CFPB recently fined XXXX XXXX. ) MR. XXXX CONTINUED REQUEST OF THE CFPB It would seem very logical, that I ( Mr. XXXX ), am not the only individual who has been deprived of money, as a result of similar action by Synchrony Bank or other financial institutions. There seems to be no easily accessible consumer tool to resolve these matters. In absence of clear methods to resolve these circumstances, the CFPB should investigate other consumer complaints, regarding those who may have lost money or had such money misapplying by institutions such as Synchrony, whom such funds were entrusted. In such circumstances it should be considered if the Banks acted with the proper good faith and fair dealing, expected by financial institutions under the law to resolve these matters. I ask that the CFPB examine and resolve the status of my money which has disappeared, and any other money lost or misplaced in other similar cases. \n\nWith all the questionable actions attributed to Synchrony bank in just this single circumstance, it would seem proper for the CFPB to investigate how Synchrony Bank has handled and resolved similar circumstances with all other customers in the past. If there are discrepancies surrounding the handling of this case and failures to act in a manner which would be considered fair and in good faith, an investigation with a much broader scope should be considered. \n\nPerhaps CFPB should require the creation of a minimum legal banking standard, for the resolution of such circumstances, requiring proper and honest records to be kept, which would allow for the traceability of lost or misapplied money, when such money is transferred physically or electronically between banks and customers. There should be emphasis on what steps should be taken when the funds transferred do not end up satisfying the legal transaction for which the bank customer intended. \n\nIn all of the documents and communication shared by the Synchrony, there is no reference to the law ( s ) that allow them the right to engage in many of these improper and perhaps illegal actions for which they have engaged. The CFPB should require banks to provide the legal justification for their actions in the correspondence shared with the consumers.\n\nARE THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY SYNCHRONY BANK LEGAL ( IN GOOD FAITH AND FAIR UNDER THE LAW ) Synchrony Banks many actions appear to be in furtherance of their attempt to deprive me ( Mr. XXXX ) of {$470.00} which was transferred to Synchrony Bank by XXXX XXXX  to satisfy a debt. Synchrony Bank has also created false transactions, incorrect documents and has opened a legally closed credit card account, without permission of the person named on that account, for the express purpose of creating a false claim and generating ill-gotten interest. In furtherance of these actions, Synchrony Bank has provided false and misleading information to the Major Credit Agencies citing false liabilities to create leverage and to damage Mr. XXXX credit and credibility. These actions were taken as a scare tactic, during this active financial dispute. \n\nI would ask the CFPB to determine and advise Mr. XXXX, if it is legal, fair, in good faith and proper for Synchrony Bank to : 1. Re-open a consumer credit account, lawfully closed by the consumer, which was satisfied and had a XXXX  balance, without the express permission of that consumer. ( This appears to be the same behavior that caused fines to be levied against XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) 2. Create false transactions on that account which was wrongly reopened, without the consumers permission or knowledge, referencing a purchase or purchases, that did not occur ( XXXX of XXXX ), in order to create a false balance, which they are now using to attempt to charge the consumer interest, threatening the consumer and damaging his credit worthiness, while the consumer is attempting to seek fair resolution of this dispute and recover funds which he believes were owed to him. \n\n3. Is it proper for Synchrony Bank to engage in behaviors with the intent to mislead the consumer, XXXX XXXX  and other investigatory agencies, ( including the CFBP ) about its actions to resolve this matter? Does the bank have an obligation of good faith and fair dealing to control funds in dispute, until the matter is resolved and to leave instructions for their employees not to release money or information in dispute until the matter is resolved? \n\n4. Is it proper for Synchrony Bank to not following through, not keeping good and/ or correct transaction records, then by their negligence, allow one of their representative to release funds to the consumer which they claim are in dispute, later creating a false debt record and following up with several self-serving, but contradictory letters in an attempt to entrap the consumer into returning money which he sincerely believes is his. \n\n5. Further is it legal for Synchrony Bank to charge the consumer interest on these funds which they know are in dispute. \n\na. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I paid a visit to my local XXXX XXXX  and with the help of a local banker, attempted to find the money removed from my account and transferred by ACH to Synchrony Bank. The XXXX banker sat with me for more than two hours working with Synchrony. He was able to demonstrate to the representative of Synchrony ( XXXX ), that the money had been transferred by XXXX to Synchrony, but not applied to my XXXX XXXX  account or ever returned to XXXX Bank. The Synchrony representative stated she needed a few days to investigate where the money went within Synchrony. It was agreed XXXX would contact me by XX/XX/XXXX with the answers. \n\nWhen no call or other information was received as promised from the Synchrony representative, on XX/XX/XXXX, I ( Mr. XXXX ) called the number the Synchrony representative had provided. A different Synchrony person answered my call. XXXX was unavailable, so I was forced to relate the whole matter to the new representative. This representative said she could not see any record of the information I had related or notes from XXXX, but did see that the amount of money I identified, was shown as a credit in my previously closed XXXX account. I said the account was legally closed so that was impossible. The Synchrony representative insisted the money was there. I then asked how I could gain the return of the money, which has always been my intent. The Synchrony person did not argue with my statement about the money being mine or the account being legally closed. When asked if that money could be returned to me by check, the Synchrony employee said it could. I stated that would be my desire. The money was sent to me in a check dated XX/XX/XXXX, which was received just before year end and deposited in my XXXX XXXX  account on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFollowing the receipt of that check, I received at least 4 letters from Synchrony Bank which seemed related to my dispute but were contrary to the facts. The first two letters were both dated ( but not received on XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( the very day I spoke to the person who agreed to create the check and six days before the check was actually issued. ) One letter spoke about my XX/XX/XXXX payment of {$230.00}, for which they had given me credit, saying it could take up to 90 days to fully resolve this matter. \n\nThe second letter also dated, XX/XX/XXXX, stated that they had found that the payment had not been credited to your account. They asked for more information to resolved this. ( After speaking with a Synchrony representative and a XXXX XXXX  representative about this letter, I believed Synchrony was already in possession of the information requested, which had been provided by both XXXX and myself to Synchrony and to XXXX XXXX, who had given it to Synchrony. I had told the Synchrony representative that they had the information and XXXX XXXX  had stated that nothing more could be given to them. \n\nSometime in early XXXX of XXXX, I received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, the day before the check was issued. It stated that on XX/XX/XXXX, a refund check was mailed to me for the full amount of {$470.00}. For the record, the check was actually dated XX/XX/XXXX, not XXXX, and the amount was the full {$470.00} dollars owed, not {$230.00} as stated in the dispute letter. ( As noted, the information in the letters did not align with the dates of the check, the amount of the check, or even the full circumstance of the check, so I determined it must be flawed and disregarded it. I had received and deposited the check already. I felt that the contradicting letters were a function of multiple peoples involvement. In my mind this matter seemed closed. \n\nWithin a few days of receiving the XX/XX/XXXX letter acknowledging that a refund was being sent, I received an additional letter from Synchrony Bank. In that letter Synchrony claimed that despite issuing me a refund, that they were unable to approve my claim. The stated that the credit that they placed in my account on XX/XX/XXXX ( again, the very day I called inquiring about the status of my claim ) was being withdrawn. They further stated that my claim was closed ( without explanation ) and I might expect charges in my account ( which was closed ) in the next billing cycle. Thus began an almost weekly barrage of abusive and threatening debt delinquency letters, stating I owe my {$470.00} dollars back to Synchrony and I must pay continuously mounting back interest on this disputed money.\n\nSince that time, I have requested the assistance of the PA Attorney Generals Office and the CFPB. The PA Attorney Generals Office has indicated that without a criminal complaint, they can only voluntarily mediate a discussion between Synchrony and myself. Since Synchrony has never denied receiving the money, but continues to deny without explanation that they should return the money, there seems to be nothing to mediate. Both the Attorney Generals Office and XXXX XXXX  had suggested contacting the CFPB to gain a resolution. \n\n6. Is it legal and proper for Synchrony Bank to continue to charge interest on the money in dispute, while the dispute process is on-going?\n\n7. Is it legal and proper for Synchrony Bank to send me letters which I interpret to be abusive and threatening, nearly weekly, stating that I owe them money which was rightfully mine and to also allege I owe interest, which is compounding, during a period when the matter is still in dispute and during which they have not taken proper action to resolve?\n\n8. Is it legal and proper for Synchrony to have a person ( Ms. XXXX XXXX ) contact me, leave a partial message with a phone number to contact her, which when called, was a recorded message indicating that my call was being recorded as an attempt to collect a debt. It would seem to any reasonable person that responding in any manner after such a recording might be construed to be an admission of an obligation to pay a debt, which is the very core of this dispute. \n\nIt should be noted that more than one attempt to contact Ms. XXXX was made, but Ms. XXXX never answered my calls and the message implying an attempt to collect a debt, was played every time I called. It should also be noted that Ms. XXXX, only attempted to call me once and has not contacted me since. If she wanted to resolve this matter, she would have determined where my money was lost and continued to contact me until the matter was resolved. \n\n\nThe American banking system continues to operate upon the legal premise that banks are monitored and controlled in such a manner that they must act fairly, in good faith and account for all money placed in their possession. It is a logical extension of that premise and the requirements created, that when money is transferred between banks, both banks have an equal responsibility to confirm that the transaction correctly took place. Furthermore, if during the transaction the money is improperly lost or misplaced, both banks have the obligation to help locate the money and return it to its rightful owner. Failing any ability to identify the rightful owner, the bank in possession of the money is obligated to remit the funds to the government to be held for recovery by the rightful owner. \n\nIf that is not true, then this should be communicated to the consumer population as a public service. \n\nAt this moment, XXXX XXXX  has provided proof that it transferred my {$470.00} to Synchrony Bank, to be given to XXXX XXXX. XXXX claimed it did not get the money, but Synchrony has remained silent on whether it received the money or what the bank did with the money, if they did not give it to XXXX. \n\nIN SUMMARY I ask the CFPB to compel the parties ( Synchrony Bank, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  and any third party who may have wrongly received this money ) to use their collective resources to determine where my money went, to recover it and return it to its rightful owner ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I further request that Synchrony Bank cease it false, threatening and abusive behavior, in regard to Mr. XXXX, also returning any interest charged during all disputed transactions, ending all false attempting to collect interest, from the closed XXXX Account, and repairing the damage they have caused to my credit and reputation, by admitting their predatory actions to the major credit agencies. Only after this is done can there be a satisfactory resolution of this matter. \n\nI ask that if the CFPB determines that anyone acted improperly, that educative and corrective steps be taken. If any actions were determined to be criminal, I ask that stronger corrective measures be initiated. \n\nSynchrony Bank has indicated that they gave me {$470.00} in error, which they claim they should be returned. I stand ready to return their money if they can prove who received my {$470.00} and help in its recovery. if the CFPB can prove that Synchrony Bank never received my money, I should be advised and I will issue a check. \n\nI ask that the CFPB stop Synchrony Bank from charging me interest on this dispute. They or some other party has held my {$470.00} for 22 months, during which I attempted to recover it and did not receive interest. It has only been seven months since they issued me a check for {$470.00} and they are more than partially responsible for the confusion that cause this to escalate to the CFPB. \n\nThank you for your patience in reviewing this document and acting to resolve this matter. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-08-09T20:12:58.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"18411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4614752","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2021-08-09T19:59:12.000Z","state":"PA","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":["If that were not true, then all banks would be <em>engaging</em> in these activities to generate funds. XXXX This <em>action</em> seems to be the same illegal <em>action</em> for which the CFPB recently fined XXXX XXXX. ) MR. XXXX CONTINUED REQUEST OF THE CFPB It would seem very logical, that I ( Mr. XXXX ), am not the only individual who has been deprived of money, as a result of similar <em>action</em> by Synchrony Bank or other financial institutions."]},"sort":[8.779802,"4614752"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14901496","_score":6.4301715,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Formal Complaint and Rebuttal Oliphant USA LLC CFPB Case XXXX XXXXXXXX Account : Oliphant USA LLC XXXX XXXX ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal rebuttal to Oliphant USA LLCs response dated XX/XX/XXXX. Oliphant is currently reporting a debt to XXXX and XXXX  that I do not owe and that was previously deleted following a valid FTC Identity Theft Report. Their continued furnishing of this tradeline under a new name and number is unlawful and has caused me significant harm. Below I outline violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), and FDUTPA.\n\n1. FCRA 1681e ( b ) Inaccurate Reporting Without Verification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ), any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency must : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nOliphant failed to meet this requirement. In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they based their reporting on an email address match alone and did not verify critical personal identifiers, including my : Social Security number ( SSN ) Date of birth ( DOB ) Residential address Any signed agreement or contract They also ignored the identity theft documentation I previously submitted, which triggered a heightened legal duty to verify accuracy. \n\nBy reporting this account without confirming these key data points, Oliphant failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the information was accurate and belonged to me. Courts have consistently held that failure to verify personal identifiers especially in cases involving identity theft claims violates 1681e ( b ). This has resulted in real harm to me, including credit damage and emotional distress, and supports deletion of the tradeline and potential civil liability under 1681n ( willful ) and 1681o ( negligent ) violations.\n\n2. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) - ( C ) Improper Reinsertion Without Required Notice or Certification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ), onc\ne a consumer has successfully disputed and removed an account from their credit file, a furnisher or credit reporting agency may not reinsert that information unless they meet strict legal conditions : 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : A deleted item may only be reinserted if the furnisher certifies \nthat the information is complete and accurate.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) : If an item is reinserted, the consumer reporting agency must notify the consumer within five ( 5 ) business days, disclosing the source of the information and informing the consumer of their right to dispute again.\n\nIn this case, I previously submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation, which led to the removal of the original XXXX XXXX tradeline from my credit report. \n\nLater, Oliphant USA LLC re-reported the same debt under : A new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ), A new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and Without disclosing any relationship to the deleted XXXX XXXX account. \n\nThis was a functional reinsertion of the same disputed debt. However, neither Oliphant nor the consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fulfilled the following legal requirements : No certification that the reinserted information was complete and accurate ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ).\n\nNo written notice sent to me within 5 business days of reinsertion ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ). \n\nNo explanation that the new tradeline was connected to the previously deleted account. \n\nThis conduct is deceptive and unlawful. Rebranding the same invalid debt under a new name and account number appears to be an intentional attempt to evade FCRA reinsertion safeguards, effectively re-aging a disputed, time-barred, and fraudulent debt.\n\nBy failing to follow the required reinsertion protocol, Oliphant and the CRAs have violated the FCRA and contributed to contin\nued harm to my credit profile and financial standing. This supports my request for deletion of the account, investigation by the CFPB, and any relief available under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\n3. FCRA 1681b No Permissible Purpose for Reporting or Accessing My Credit File Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681b, a person or entity may only obtain or furnish a consumer report for specific, lawful, and permissible purposes. These purposes include : A credit transaction initiated by the consumer Collection of a legitimate, valid debt Written authorization from the consumer A court order or applicable subpoena Oliphant USA LLC reported a derogatory tradeline to Experian and Equifax without satisfying any of these legal bases. I never initiated a transaction with Oliphant. I have no agreement, contract, or communication with them. I have never authorized them to access, use, or furnish my personal credit information. \n\nMoreover, the alleged debt they are reporting is : Fraudulent, as confirmed by my FTC Identity Theft Report Previously deleted by Experian after my dispute Still unvalidated by Oliphant, who admits they merely \" requested '' validation from the servicer Without a valid and verifiable creditorconsumer relationship, and in the face of unresolved identity theft claims, Oliphant had no permissible purpose under 1681b to furnish or verify this tradeline with any credit reporting agency.\n\nTheir continued credit reporting in this context constitutes a violation of FCRA 1681b ( f ), which states : A person shall not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section. By failing to meet this standard, Oliphant exposed m\ne to : False negative information on my credit report Lower credit scores and financial opportunity losses Emotional and reputational harm This violation supports my request for permanent deletion of the tradeline, regulatory investigation, and damages under FCRA 1681n and 1681o for willful or negligent violations.\n\n4. FDCPA 1692g ( b ) Reporting Without Validation Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( b ), if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days of receiving notice, the debt collector must : Cease all collection activity, including reporting to credit bureaus, Until they have obtained verification of the debt, and Have mailed a copy of such verification to the consumer. \n\nThis is a mandatory requirement. The law does not permit a debt collector to continue attempting to collect directly or indirectly without first validating the debt in response to a written dispute. \n\nIn this case, I filed a formal identity theft dispute and submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation. Despite this, Oliphant continued reporting the account to XXXX and XXXX In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they only requested validation from the servicer ( XXXX XXXX ) and provided no confirmation that the debt had been verified nor did they send me any written validation. \n\nThis continued credit reporting constitutes a form of indirect debt collection. Courts have consistently recognized that furnishing or updating a tradeline with a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) is a collection activity under the FDCPA. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where the court held that such reporting while a dispute is pending and before validation is provided violates 1692g ( b ).\n\nBecause Oliphant : Received a written dispute, Failed to validate the debt in writing, and Continued to report and maintain the tradeline, They have clearly violated FDCPA 1692g ( b ).\n\nThis violation : Justifies permanent deletion of the accoun\nt, Supports regulatory enforcement, and Entitles me to relief under FDCPA 1692k, including : Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ), Actual damages for emotional or financial harm, Attorneys fees and costs, if pursued in court.\n\n5. FDCPA 1692g ( a ) Failure to Send Required I\nnitial Validation Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( a ), a debt collector must provide a written validation notice to the consumer within five ( 5 ) days of their initial communication. This notice must clearly include the following disclosures : The amount of the debt ; The name of the current creditor ; A statement of the consumers right to dispute the debt within 30 days ; A statement that the collector will provide verification or a judgment upon written request ; A statement that the collector will identify the original creditor upon request, if different.\n\nOliphant USA LLC failed to provide me with any such written notice. I was never sent a communicationby mail or otherwisecontaining these disclosures. I only learned of Oliphant 's involvement after discovering their derogatory tradeline on my credit report. \n\nCredit reporting itself is recognized as an initial communication for purposes of FDCPA compliance because it constitutes a collection attempt through reputational damage. Therefore, Oliphant had a legal obligation to send me a 1692g ( a ) notice within five days of reporting the debt to the CRAs. They did not.\n\nThis omission violated one of the most fundamental protections in the FDCPA. Without this notice : I was not informed of my dispute rights ; I had no idea who the alleged creditor was or what amount they claimed ; I was deprived of my right to request validation or the name of the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ). \n\nThis violation is not merely proceduralit caused real harm by allowing Oliphant to furnish negative credit data while withholding my statutory right to contest the debt.\n\nThis violation of 1692g ( a ) supports : My request for deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement by the CFPB, and My right to seek damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory damages, actual harm, and attorneys fees if pursued in court.\n\n6. FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) Misrepresenting the Character, Amount, or Legal Status of the Debt Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) prohibits a debt collector from falsely representing : The character of a debt, The amount of a debt, or The legal status of a debt.\n\nOliphant USA LLC has violated this provision by including court fees in the reported balance of a debt that h\nas never been the subject of a legal action or court judgment.\n\nTo my knowledge : I have never been sued by Oliphant USA LLC or XXXX XXXX XXXX have never received service of process, been summoned, or appeared in court regarding this matter, No judgment has been issued against me in connection with this alleged debt.\n\nDespite this, Oliphant reported an inflated balance that exceeds the original charge-off amount including what they identify as court fees. This falsely suggests that : A court has entered a judgment against me, The debt has been legally adjudicated, and The amount owed includes legally imposed costs.\n\nThis is a misrepresentation of both the amount and legal status of the debt under 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\nCourts have consistently held that the inclusion of court costs or legal fees without an actual lawsuit or judgment is a deceptive and unlawful practice under the FDCPA. In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, the court ruled that representing attorneys fees or legal charges as part of a consumer debt without proper explanation or legal authority violated 1692e.\n\nHere, Oliphant : Failed to provide any legal justification or supporting contract showing their right to collect court fees, Offered no proof of legal proceedings to justify such charges, and Furnished this misleading information to credit reporting agencies, where it remains visible to lenders and the public. \n\nThis creates a false sense of legal finality and urgency, and damages my reputation and creditworthiness based on claims that are legally unfounded.\n\nThis violation of 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) supports my request for : Permanent deletion of the tradeline, Regulatory enforcement action, and Statutory and actual damages under FDCPA 1692k.\n\n7. FDCPA 1692f ( 1 ) Collection of Unauthorized A\nmounts Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692f ( 1 ), a debt collector may not attempt to collect : Any amount ( including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation ) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\nIn this case, Oliphant USA LLC has added court fees to the balance of the alleged debt that they are reporting to XXXX and XXXX  However : I have never been served with a lawsuit, I have never appeared in court, No judgment has been entered against me, and Oliphant has never provided a copy of any contract or agreement authorizing court-related charges.\n\nWithout a court order or contractual basis, the inclusion of court fees is unlawful. These charges are neither authorized by the original XXXX XXXX agreement nor awarded by any legal proceeding. \n\nCourts have routinely found that the attempt to collect fees not authorized by a contract or permitted by law is a strict violation of 1692f ( 1 ). For example, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, even the attempt to collect small unauthorized fees was found actionable. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute intent is not required. If an unauthorized amount is sought, a violation exists.\n\nBy inflating the balance of the alleged debt in this way, Oliphant is attempting to collect an amount that exceeds any legal or contractual authority. This conduct : Misleads CRAs and potential lenders, Exposes me to false financial liability, and Directly violates federal law. \n\nThis supports my demand for : Permanent deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement under the FDCPA, and Damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory and actual damages.\n\n8. FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) Attempting to Enforce a Time-Barred Debt Under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) 559.72 ( 9 ), it is unlawful for a debt collector to : Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.\n\nIn this case, Oliphant USA LLC is attempting to collect and report a debt that is clearly time-barred under Florida Statutes 95.11 ( 2 ) ( b ), which sets a 5-year statute of limitations for actions based on written contracts. \n\nBased on my records and available credit history : The original XXXX XXXX account was charged off in XXXX or earlier, and No payments or acknowledgments have been made since that time to revive the debt, The tradeline appears to have been reinserted under Oliphants name after the statute of limitations had already expired.\n\nDespite the debt being legally unenforceable, Oliphant continues to : Report it to XXXX and XXXX Represent the amount as current and collectible, and Omit any disclosure that the debt is beyond Floridas statutory limitations period. \n\nThis is a clear attempt to enforce rights that no longer legally exist a direct violation of 559.72 ( 9 ).\n\nCourts interpreting this section of the FCCPA have consistently ruled that : Collectors must not misrepresent or attempt to enforce time-barred debts, Failing to disclose that a debt is unenforceable can itself be deceptive, Credit reporting is considered a form of collection activity.\n\nBy engaging in this conduct, Oliphant is misleading me, CRAs, and potential creditors into believing the debt is valid, recent, and legally enforceable when it is not. This deception has caused me real financial and reputational harm. \n\nAs such, I request : Immediate deletion of this tradeline from all CRAs, Investigation and enforcement by the CFPB and Florida Attorney General, and Relief under FCCPA 559.77, including damages, costs, and attorneys fees.\n\npayment history : 9. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) Missing or Misstated DOFD and Payment History ( Re-Aging Violation ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), furnishers are strictly required to report the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date accurately. These fields are essential for determining the reporting period of a negative account. Specifically : 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) prohibits reporting collection accounts more than seven years plus 180 days from the DOFD.\n\n1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) similarly restricts charged-off account reporting after that period. \n\nIn my case, the original XXXX XXXX account was charged off prior to XXXX, and the debt should therefore be nearing or already beyond the statutory reporting limit. However, Oliphant USA LLC : Reported an inaccurate open date of XX/XX/XXXX, Omitted or misstated the DOFD, Failed to include the last payment date, and Provided no documentation or XXXX XXXX-compliant data to support the legitimacy or age of the tradeline. \n\nThese omissions and alterations effectively re-age the account, making it appear newer and more damaging to my credit than it actually is. This tactic is illegal under the FCRA and has been the subject of multiple enforcement actions by the CFPB and FTC. \n\nFurnishers are also required to comply with XXXX XXXX credit reporting standards, which mandate proper furnishing of : Field XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment History Profile Field XXXX Account Status Field XXXX Special Comment Codes, including dispute, fraud, or identity theft flags ( e.g., XB, XH ) Oliphants failure to report these fields and their misrepresentation of the accounts age has likely caused my credit score to be lower than it would be with accurate reporting. Worse, it allows a time-barred and previously deleted debt to stay on my file longer than the law allows.\n\nThis conduct : Violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ), Circumvents the statute of limitations on credit reporting, Undermines the integrity of the credit system, and Constitutes an additional basis for deletion, regulatory enforcement, and damages. \nI request the CFPB investigate whether Oliphant improperly re-aged this account and failed to furnish the required DOFD and payment history fields in accordance with both FCRA and XXXX XXXX standards. \n10. XXXX XXXX and FCRA Violations Rebranding and Concealing a Previously Deleted Debt Oliphant USA LLC is furnishing data to Experian and Equifax regarding the same underlying account that was previously reported and deleted by XXXX XXXX. However, rather than identifying the debt properly, Oliphant has : Reported the debt under a new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ) and a new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), Failed to include any reference to the original creditor, Reported a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, which is disconnected from the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), Omitted required XXXX XXXX fields, including : Field XXXX XXXX, Field XXXX Payment History Profile, Field XXXX Accurate Account Status, and Field XXXX Dispute/Fraud Coding ( e.g., XB or XH ) These omissions and misrepresentations violate XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : FCRA 1681e ( b ) failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to correct or update inaccurate information after receiving notice of dispute, FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) potential re-aging of obsolete information This conduct conceals the history of identity theft and prior deletion of the account and gives the misleading appearance that a new, legitimate account exists, when in fact it is the same previously removed debt rebranded, reinserted, and re-aged. \n\nThese tactics mislead credit reporting agencies, lenders, and other users of my credit file. I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate whether Oliphants reporting practices conform to XXXX XXXX standards and whether they violated their legal obligations under the FCRA by failing to furnish complete, accurate, and non-misleading data.\n\n11. FDCPA 1692c ( c ) Cease and Desist Notice and Enforcement This letter constitutes formal written notice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1692c ( c ) that I refuse to pay the disputed debt and demand that Oliphant USA LLC immediately cease all further communication with me regarding this matter.\n\nPursuant to 1692c ( c ), once a consumer notifie\ns a debt collector in writing to cease communication, the collector may only contact the consumer : To confirm that further collection efforts will stop, or To inform the consumer of specific legal remedies that may be pursued Any further attempts to collect this alleged debt including but not limited to letters, calls, emails, or continued credit reporting will constitute a separate and actionable violation of the FDCPA. \n\nI dispute the validity and ownership of this debt in full. I have submitted an FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. I have no relationship with Oliphant, and I have received no proper validation. I will not engage in further communication unless required to defend myself in a legal forum.\n\nI am formally requesting that Oliphant : Cease all direct or indirect collection activities, including credit rep\norting, Mark the account as disputed and blocked due to identity theft, and Refrain from selling, transferring, or assigning the account to any third party Any failure to comply with this cease and desist notice will be considered willful noncompliance under the FDCPA and may give rise to further regulatory complaint and/or civil action.\n\n12. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & 1681s-2 ( b ) CRA and Furnisher Reinvestigation Failures Under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), both consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) and furnishers of information have strict reinvestigation obligations when a consumer submits a dispute. \n\nWhen I disputed this account with XXXX  and XXXX  I included : A valid FTC Identity Theft Report, Written details outlining the fraudulent nature of the debt, and Evidence that the original tradeline had previously been removed from my credit file If Oliphant USA LLC responded to the CRA dispute by confirming the account without : Conducting a meaningful investigation, Reviewing the identity theft documentation I submitted, or Verifying the accuracy of fields such as XXXX, last payment, and original creditor information, then they violated FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nLikewise, if the CRAs failed to delete or correct unverifiable data within the 30-day period, they violated FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\nBoth the CRA and the furnisher are obligated to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, Review all relevant evidence submitted by the consumer, and Update or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable data A mere check-the-box confirmation without substantive review is legally insufficient. This failure has allowed false information to remain on my report, contributing to : Lower credit scores, Reputational harm, Credit denials, and Ongoing emotional distress These failures support my request for deletion of the tradeline, enforcement action by the CFPB, and relief under FCRA 1681n and 1681o. \n13. FDUTPA 501.204 Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Oliphant USA LLCs actions constitute clear violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204, which prohibits any unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.\n\nSpecifically, Oliphant engaged in the following deceptive and unfair practices : Rebranding a previously deleted account ( originally from XXXX XXXX ) and furnishing it under a new tradename and number, without disclosing its origin, deletion history, or disputed status. \n\nAssigning a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, while omitting the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date creating the false appearance of recency. \n\nAdding court fees to the balance despite there being no legal judgment, court action, or supporting contract. \n\nReporting a time-barred debt as if it were legally enforceable, without notifying me or the CRAs that the debt is beyond Floridas 5-year statute of limitations. \n\nFailing to apply the appropriate XXXX XXXX dispute and identity theft codes, such as XXXX or XXXX, misleading the credit bureaus into believing the account is undisputed and valid. \n\nContinuing to report and collect on this account without providing written validation or responding to identity theft documentation despite their obligations under both federal and Florida law. \n\nUnder FDUTPA : It is not necessary to prove intent only that the practice was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. \n\nThese acts and omissions were material, misleading, and harmful to me as a Florida consumer. \n\nFDUTPA covers any commercial conduct including debt collection and credit reporting that causes injury through deceptive methods. \n\nAs a result of these practices, I have suffered : Damage to my creditworthiness, Denial of financial opportunities, Emotional distress and reputational harm, and The cost of ongoing efforts to correct a re-aged, unlawful, and invalid tradeline. \n\nThis pattern of concealment, unauthorized charges, and failure to disclose essential account information is not merely technical it is deceptive and unlawful under Florida law. I respectfully request that the CFPB refer this matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to hold Oliphant accountable under FDUTPA.\n\n14. Pattern of Abusive and Systemic Noncompliance The conduct exhibited by Oliphant USA LLC in my case is not an isolated event, but part of a well-documented pattern of abusive and unlawful practices affecting consumers nationwide. Numerous public complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and consumer rights organizations reveal systemic violations that mirror my own experience.\n\nConsumers consistently report that Oliphant : Attempts to collect debts that are not owed Re-ages or rebrands previously disputed or deleted accounts Continues reporting tradelines without proper validation Adds unauthorized fees to balances Fails to respond to identity theft disputes Harasses consumers despite cease and desist notices Examples of Public Consumer Complaints : Oliphant Financial , LLC is aggressively attempting to collect an alleged debt of {$5500.00} from me. I have sent a formal dispute letter via certified mail demanding full validation of this debt, as is my right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite my dispute, their collection efforts constitute harassment. \nXXXX  Complaint ( bbb.org ) They are trying to collect on a debt that is over 10 years old and already settled. I never received any notice, and they just reported it to the credit bureau as if it were new. \nPublic Complaint Summary ( thelangelfirm.com ) I disputed the debt with Oliphant and they never responded, yet they continue to update the tradeline monthly, lowering my credit score. I provided identity theft documentation and still no response.\n\nPublic Legal Forum Report ( consumerlawfirmcenter.com ) Oliphant is using zombie debt collection practices. They placed a tradeline on my credit report for a debt I never heard of and never validated. This company is guilty of violating consumer notification before striking my credit.\n\nCFPB Public Complaint This pattern reveals a recurring\nfailure to comply with : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681c FDCPA 1692g ( a ) - ( b ), 1692e, 1692f, 1692c ( c ) FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) FDUTPA 501.204 These repeated practices are not simple errors they reflect a business model that profits from the unlawful suppression of consumer rights and regulatory evasion. They demonstrate reckless or willful noncompliance, elevating the seriousness of Oliphants legal exposure under both federal and Florida law.\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB : Recognize these acts as part of a larger pattern of abuse Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office for further enforcement under FDUTPA Impose corrective measures, civil penalties, and require permanent deletion of the unlawful tradeline 15. Potential Improper Disclosure of Personal Identifying Information It appears that XXXX XXXX may have improperly disclosed my sensitive personal identifying information ( PII ) including my Social Security number, date of birth, address, and contact information to Oliphant USA LLC after I had submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and formally disputed the debt as fraudulent. \n\nIn Oliphants JXX/XX/XXXX response, they stated that XXXX XXXX declined the fraud claim due to an email match. However, Oliphant also admitted they had no signed contract, no account records, and no verified identity match. This strongly suggests that my full identity information was shared without my consent and without a permissible legal basis. \n\nThis raises potential violations of the following laws : FCRA 1681b ( f ) Use of consumer information without a valid, permissible purpose Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Unauthorized sharing of non-public personal information ( NPI ) between a financial institution and a non-affiliated third party If XXXX XXXX  shared my identity data with a third-party debt buyer after the account had been disputed, deleted, and identified as fraudulent, such sharing may constitute a breach of consumer privacy and data protection laws. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate whether XXXX XXXX or Oliphant violated federal privacy protections by disclosing or using my personal information after the debt had been flagged as fraudulent. Any findings should be referred to the FTC, appropriate privacy regulators, and state-level data protection authorities as warranted. \nPersonal Impact and Harm Statement In summary, the actions of Oliphant USA LLC have caused me serious and measurable harm. They have reported a debt I do not owe one that was previously removed from my credit reports after I submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. They failed to provide validation, misrepresented the nature and age of the debt, added unauthorized fees, and reinserted the tradeline under a new account number without proper notice. These actions violate multiple provisions of the FCRA, FDCPA, FCCPA, and FDUTPA, as well as XXXX XXXX industry standards. \n\nBecause of Oliphants conduct, I have experienced : Significant and unjustified damage to my credit score Denial of credit and increased borrowing costs Emotional stress and frustration from repeatedly disputing a matter that had already been resolved A loss of confidence in the integrity of the credit reporting system The unauthorized use and possible disclosure of my personal information I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take immediate action to : Require the permanent deletion of this account from all consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) Investigate and sanction Oliphant USA LLC for repeated and systemic violations of consumer protection laws Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney General for FDUTPA and FCCPA enforcement Require all data furnishers involved to comply with FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX guidelines I reserve the ri","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-26T08:37:47.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"32824","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14901496","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Oliphant United, Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-26T06:46:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, Oliphant USA LLC : Reported an inaccurate open date of XX/XX/XXXX, Omitted or misstated the DOFD, <em>Failed</em> to include the last payment date, and Provided no documentation or XXXX XXXX-compliant data to support the legitimacy or age of the tradeline. \n\nThese omissions and alterations effectively re-age the account, making it appear newer and more damaging to my credit than it <em>actually</em> is."]},"sort":[6.4301715,"14901496"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":5,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":5}]}},"product":{"doc_count":5,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":5,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":5,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":5}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":5,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":5}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":5,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":5}]}},"company":{"doc_count":5,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Oliphant United, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":5,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":5,"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":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":5,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}