{"took":1502,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":23,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21861711","_score":27.509346,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Improper denial of billing dispute services not rendered & failure to conduct reasonable investigation under federal law Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint regarding Capital Ones handling of a billing dispute involving a merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis is not a standard disputethis involves services never rendered and deceptive business practices by the merchant, combined with Capital Ones failure to properly investigate and reclassify the dispute after being notified of an error. \nDespite multiple phone calls explaining that my original dispute classification was incorrect, Capital One refused to reconsider and is now holding me financially responsible for services that were never provided. \n\nTimeline of Events XX/XX/year> I received a Binding Moving Estimate from XXXX XXXX XXXX The company presented itself as a full-service moving company, including transportation, loading, and delivery I paid a deposit based on this representation XX/XX/year> ( Prior to Scheduled Move ) My inventory and unit size never changed from the original estimate XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Never scheduled a pickup Never assigned a carrier Never transported my belongings I attempted to cancel the service The company failed to : Confirm cancellation Provide documentation Follow proper cancellation procedures Move Date Passed No services were performed I was forced to : -Rent a truck -Pay for lodging -Complete the move independently Initial Dispute with Capital One -I filed a dispute, but it was categorized incorrectly -I immediately contacted Capital One multiple times to clarify : XXXXThis is a services not rendered case, not a standard dispute -The merchant performed zero services Follow-Up Calls with Capital One I repeatedly explained : -No pickup occurred -No mover was assigned -No transportation happened I also informed them that : The merchants conduct appears to violate Florida law governing moving brokers Despite this, Capital One : -Refused to properly reclassify the dispute, even though multiple agents agreed and helped with documents -Failed to meaningfully consider the updated information -Closed the case against me Merchant Violations ( Legal Context ) XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct appears to violate Florida Statute XXXX ( Moving Brokers ), including : Misrepresenting themselves as a moving company rather than a broker Providing a binding estimate including full move costs, which brokers are prohibited from doing Failing to clearly disclose their broker status prior to payment Failing to arrange a licensed carrier Additionally, this conduct constitutes deceptive and unfair trade practices. \n\nCapital Ones Failures ( Federal Law ) Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z, Capital One is required to : Conduct a reasonable investigation of billing disputes Correct billing errors involving : Charges for services not rendered Consider all relevant information provided by the consumer Capital One failed to meet these obligations by : Ignoring repeated notifications that the dispute was misclassified Failing to re-evaluate the claim under the correct category Disregarding evidence that no services were provided Holding me responsible for a charge where the merchant delivered nothing Key Facts : -I paid for moving services -No services were ever performed -The merchant failed to fulfill ANY contractual obligation -Capital One refused to correct or properly investigate the dispute This matter is straightforward : I was charged for services that were never provided. \nThe merchant engaged in deceptive practices, and Capital One failed to fulfill its legal obligation to properly investigate and resolve the dispute. \nI am seeking a fair resolution consistent with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-04T19:12:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33993","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21861711","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-05-04T18:54:05.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Capital Ones Failures ( Federal Law ) Under the Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z, Capital One is required to : Conduct a reasonable <em>investigation</em> of <em>billing</em> <em>disputes</em> <em>Correct</em> <em>billing</em> <em>errors</em> <em>involving</em> : <em>Charges</em> for services not <em>rendered</em> Consider all relevant information provided by the consumer Capital One failed to meet these obligations by : Ignoring repeated notifications that the <em>dispute</em> was misclassified Failing to re-evaluate the claim under the <em>correct</em> category Disregarding"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[27.509346,"21861711"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21535240","_score":27.188297,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Against : Capital One , N.A . \nIssue : Billing dispute duplicate charge / no service received Date of Transactions : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$100.00} ( charged twice ) I am filing this complaint regarding Capital Ones improper handling and denial of a billing dispute involving a duplicate charge where no service was rendered. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I attempted to purchase a travel visa at a self-service kiosk in XXXX XXXX XXXX During the first attempt, the machine froze and failed to issue a visa. Despite the failure, my credit card was charged {$100.00}. I was then required to repeat the transaction, and the second attempt was successful, resulting in one visa being issued. \n\nAs a result, I was charged twice ( {$100.00} x 2 ) for a single visa. Only one visa exists and was issued under my passport. \n\nI disputed the duplicate charge with Capital One. The dispute was denied based on the merchants claim that both transactions were valid because they were contactless. However, this conclusion is flawed : - A contactless transaction only confirms payment authorization, not that a service was successfully delivered. \n- The merchant has not provided any evidence that two visas were issued. \n- It is not possible for two visas to be issued for the same passport in the same transaction session. \n- One of the charges clearly represents payment for a service that was never rendered. \n\nAdditionally, Capital One cited procedural reasons for denial, including lack of evidence of merchant contact. I am actively attempting to contact the merchant, but this does not change the fundamental issue : only one service was delivered. \n\nCapital One has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Specifically, they relied on generic merchant assertions rather than verifying whether two services were actually rendered. \n\nRequested Resolution : - Reopen and properly investigate the dispute under : - Duplicate charge, and/or - No service rendered - Require the merchant to provide proof that two separate visas were issued under my passport - Reverse the invalid duplicate charge of {$100.00} if such proof can not be provided I am requesting that Capital One correct this billing error and comply with its obligations under federal law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-23T18:36:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"08817","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21535240","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-23T18:15:21.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Requested Resolution : - Reopen and properly <em>investigate</em> the <em>dispute</em> under : - Duplicate <em>charge</em>, and/or - No service <em>rendered</em> - Require the merchant to provide proof that two separate visas were issued under my passport - Reverse the invalid duplicate <em>charge</em> of {$100.00} if such proof can not be provided I am requesting that Capital One <em>correct</em> this <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> and comply with its obligations under federal law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[27.188297,"21535240"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21159295","_score":24.055058,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing this formal complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union regarding their handling of a dispute involving negligent automotive repair services that resulted in substantial financial loss and safety risk. \n\nThis complaint extends beyond a disputed charge. It involves failure to conduct a thorough investigation, premature closure of a claim, admission of internal error, and continued delay despite full evidence being providedall of which raise serious concerns under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). \n\nBackground of the Dispute On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and an XXXX  ( XXXX ) sensor, which were installed by XXXX. \n\nImmediately following this installation : The vehicle began malfunctioning Performance declined significantly Safety concerns became evident Subsequent findings confirmed : Damage to engine and brake-related wiring Compromised fuel system, including a damaged gas line The vehicle was rendered unsafe and ultimately undrivable The vehicle later failed completely and was deemed unsafe by a mechanic, forcing me to impound it and purchase a replacement vehicle. \n\nFinancial Impact As a direct result, I incurred total damages of : {$4200.00} Additionally, I had invested {$1600.00} on XX/XX/year> to maintain the vehicle, demonstrating responsible ownership and maintenance prior to this incident. \n\nDispute Process & Procedural Failures I formally disputed these charges with Navy Federal and provided all requested documentation supporting my claim, including evidence of : Negligent installation Resulting mechanical damage Financial losses directly tied to the service However, Navy Federals handling of this dispute has been deeply concerning : Failure to Conduct a Thorough Investigation My dispute was closed without a complete or proper review of the evidence submitted.\n\nAdmission of Error by Navy Federal After closing the claim, I received communication from Navy Federal acknowledging that : Documentation had been submitted as requested The claim had not been properly reviewed They apologized and reopened the dispute, confirming that the initial closure was their mistake.\n\nContinued Delay & Lack of Resolution Despite reopening the case and having all relevant documentation : Navy Federal has failed to move forward in a timely manner They are delaying resolution despite having the necessary evidence No provisional credit has been issued No clear or substantive updates have been provided This pattern reflects procedural negligence and failure to meet dispute resolution standards.\n\nRequests Made to Navy Federal I formally requested : XXXX. Full reimbursement of {$4200.00} XXXX. Provisional credit during the investigation XXXX. A complete investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act XXXX. A written explanation for any delay or denial XXXX. Copies of all documentation used in their decision-making XXXX. Confirmation of compliance with federal dispute timelines These requests have not been properly fulfilled. \n\nLegal Concerns Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable and thorough investigation Avoid premature or unsupported claim closures Resolve disputes within two billing cycles ( maximum 90 days ) Correct billing errors when services were not properly rendered The failure to properly investigate, combined with an admitted internal error and continued delay, raises serious concerns about compliance with these requirements.\n\nRequested Resolution I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to ensure : Immediate full reimbursement of {$4200.00} Proper handling and completion of the dispute Accountability for the premature closure and procedural errors Assurance that Navy Federal complies with federal dispute resolution laws Closing Statement I acted in good faith, provided all requested documentation, and followed the proper dispute process. Navy Federal initially failed to properly review my claim, admitted their error, and has since continued to delay resolution despite having all necessary information. \n\nThis is not simply a delay, it is a failure of process, oversight, and compliance. \n\nI respectfully request intervention to ensure this matter is resolved fairly and in accordance with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-11T13:48:58.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90043","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21159295","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-04-11T13:24:22.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Legal Concerns Under the Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable and thorough <em>investigation</em> Avoid premature or unsupported claim closures Resolve <em>disputes</em> within two <em>billing</em> cycles ( maximum 90 days ) <em>Correct</em> <em>billing</em> <em>errors</em> when services were not properly <em>rendered</em> The failure to properly <em>investigate</em>, combined with an admitted internal <em>error</em> and continued delay, raises serious concerns about compliance with these requirements."],"sub_issue":["Banking <em>errors</em>"]},"sort":[24.055058,"21159295"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20770891","_score":23.89764,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This correspondence serves as formal notice of a disputed transaction and potential legal claims arising from both the merchants conduct and the issuing banks failure to comply with governing law. \n\nI was charged {$2500.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX for a XXXX XXXX  scheduled for XX/XX/year>. The reservation was canceled prior to the service date, and no services were rendered. \n\nThe merchants own documentation reflects : Pre-service communication regarding cancellation A final charge processed at XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, followed by a cancellation call at XXXX XXXX, within minutes Additional written communication confirming cancellation intent Despite this, the merchant retained substantially the full amount and issued only a {$110.00} partial refund, confirming the transaction was adjustable and not strictly non-refundable. \n\nFederal Law Violations 1. Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) This charge constitutes a billing error as it involves : Charges for services not delivered as agreed Goldman Sachs is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct such errors. That has not occurred.\n\n2. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) Goldman Sachs failed to comply with required billing error procedures, including : Failure to properly evaluate submitted evidence Reliance on inconsistent merchant claims Requiring repeated submissions without resolution 3. Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) The failure to properly resolve this billing dispute undermines the statutory protections afforded to consumers regarding fair and accurate billing practices.\n\nKentucky Law Violations 1. Kentucky Consumer Protection Act KRS 367.170 The merchants conduct constitutes : Unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts in trade or commerce Retaining full payment for services never rendered, while relying on technical interpretations of a cancellation policy, falls within prohibited conduct.\n\n2. Unjust Enrichment ( Kentucky Common Law ) The merchant has : Retained a benefit ( {$2500.00} ) Without providing any corresponding service This creates a valid claim for restitution.\n\n3. Breach of Contract / Failure of Consideration ( Kentucky Common Law ) No service was delivered Therefore, the basis for the charge failed Card Network Violations This dispute qualifies under Mastercard Reason Code 4855 ( Services Not Rendered/ Canceled Services ) : Service date : XX/XX/year> Cancellation occurred prior to service No benefit was received Merchant policy does not override network protections in these circumstances. \n\nLiability Position The facts establish : No services rendered Retention of funds without performance Inconsistent and self-serving merchant evidence Failure of Goldman Sachs to comply with federal dispute requirements Notice of Intent Absent immediate resolution, I am prepared to pursue all available remedies, including : Continued action through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaints to the Kentucky Attorney Generals Office Evaluation of claims under : KRS 367.170 ( Consumer Protection Act ) Unjust enrichment Failure of consideration Federal consumer protection statutes Demand for Cure To resolve this matter without escalation, I demand : Immediate reversal of the full {$2500.00} Written confirmation of compliance with : 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( FCBA ) 12 CFR 1026.13 ( Regulation Z ) Failure to cure this matter promptly will result in further action without additional notice.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-30T14:50:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"40245","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20770891","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2026-03-30T14:09:13.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) This <em>charge</em> constitutes a <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> as it <em>involves</em> : <em>Charges</em> for services not delivered as agreed Goldman Sachs is required to conduct a reasonable <em>investigation</em> and <em>correct</em> such <em>errors</em>. That has not occurred.\n\n2."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[23.89764,"20770891"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18204006","_score":23.150803,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Against : Bank of America , N.A . \nIssue Type : Credit card dispute / Billing error / Failure to properly investigate Related Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed Amount : {$12000.00} Claim Number : XXXX I am filing a complaint regarding Bank of Americas handling of a credit card dispute involving a {$12000.00} charge from XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI purchased a business services program that was explicitly marketed and sold with a performance-based refund guarantee. The guarantee stated that if certain results or milestones were not achieved, I would be entitled to a refund. Despite fully participating in the program, documenting my efforts, and formally requesting a refund under the stated guarantee, the merchant refused to honor the refund.\n\nI filed a dispute with Bank of America for services not rendered and failure to honor a contractual guarantee. Bank of America initially opened the claim, closed it, reopened it multiple times, and ultimately closed it again stating that they were unable to confirm that I was supposed to receive something different than what I received. \n\nThis conclusion is incorrect and reflects a failure to properly investigate the dispute. The issue was not whether I received something, but whether the merchant fulfilled the advertised and contractually promised results and refund guarantee. Bank of America applied a goods-based or receipt-based standard to a services contract that included performance claims and refund terms. \n\nBank of America did not adequately evaluate : The written refund guarantee The merchants marketing representations The failure to deliver promised outcomes The merchants refusal to honor its own guarantee Instead, Bank of America improperly required proof that I received something different than what I purchased, which is not the correct standard for a services-not-rendered or breach-of-guarantee dispute. \n\nAs a result, Bank of America closed my claim without properly addressing the substance of the dispute, leaving me financially harmed despite clear documentation and good-faith efforts. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require Bank of America to conduct a proper senior-level review of this dispute under the correct legal and regulatory standards applicable to services contracts and refund guarantees.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-21T06:34:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"98258","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18204006","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-12-21T06:24:17.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue Type : Credit card <em>dispute</em> / <em>Billing</em> <em>error</em> / Failure to properly <em>investigate</em> Related Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>Disputed</em> Amount : {$12000.00} Claim Number : XXXX I am filing a complaint regarding Bank of Americas handling of a credit card <em>dispute</em> <em>involving</em> a {$12000.00} <em>charge</em> from XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI purchased a business services program that was explicitly marketed and sold with a performance-based refund guarantee."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[23.150803,"18204006"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18553471","_score":23.015537,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ( CFPB ) COMPLAINT Date : XX/XX/XXXX Your Information : Full Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ga XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX : [ ... ] XXXX Company Information : Company Name : Navy Federal Credit Union Address : XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX Phone : XXXX Complaint Details : What type of problem are you having? \nCredit card or prepaid card Problem with a purchase shown on your statement Purchase was fake, fraudulent, or was incorrectly charged Tell us what happened : I am filing this complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union for violating Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) by failing to properly investigate and resolve a billing error dispute involving fraudulent and illegal transactions. \n\nOn multiple occasions from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I filed disputes for charges totaling {$5500.00} made to a XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. These charges were for legal services that were never authorized, never rendered, and later admitted by the merchant to be fraudulent. \n\nEvidence of Fraud and Illegality : XXXX. The merchant provided a signed confession letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ) admitting he breached our contract and promised a full refund. \n\nXXXX. A XXXX court order ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ruled his services were not legally authorized. \n\nXXXX. The merchant is under criminal investigation for procedural fraud in XXXX. \nXXXX. Colombian Consumer Protection Law ( Ley 1480 of 2011 ) mandates a refund for services not rendered. \n\nNavy Federals Violations of Regulation Z/TILA : XXXX. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ( c ) ) Navy Federal denied my disputes based solely on the merchants response, ignoring conclusive evidence of fraud and illegality, including a foreign court order. A \" reasonable investigation '' can not disregard a judicial finding that the service paid for was illegal. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Acknowledge Billing Error ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) The charges qualify as a billing error under 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ) : a reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by the consumer or not delivered to the consumer as agreed. Navy Federal wrongfully characterized this as a \" merchant dispute '' rather than a billing error involving fraudulent charges. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Provide Provisional Credit During Investigation For disputes over {$50.00}, Regulation Z requires the creditor to either : Complete its investigation within XXXX billing cycles, or Provide a provisional credit while investigating. \nNavy Federal failed to provide provisional credit or resolve the dispute within the required timeframe. \n\nXXXX. Violation of the Right to Withhold Payment ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) I exercised my right to withhold payment on the disputed amount, but Navy Federal has not followed the proper procedures for resolving the dispute as required by law. \n\nXXXX. Violation of Visa Core Rules ( Compounding TILA Violation ) Navy Federal also ignored Visa Core Rule 10.4.2 ( Illegal Transaction ), which provides chargeback rights regardless of time limits. By refusing to process this chargeback, they are upholding an illegal transaction in violation of network rules. \n\nSteps Ive Taken : Submitted all evidence to XXXX XXXX multiple times Filed formal written disputes Received denial based on \" merchant response '' without addressing the evidence of illegality Escalated to Navy Federals XXXX office What would you like to happen? \nI request that the CFPB : XXXX. Investigate Navy Federals violation of Regulation Z and TILA. And validate Law 1480 of 2011 Colombia Consumer Protection laws. \n\nXXXX. Order Navy Federal to reopen and properly investigate my disputes ( Case XXXX : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). \n\nXXXX. Order Navy Federal to permanently credit my account for the full disputed amount of {$5500.00}. For the Merchant violated several consumer protection laws in Law 1480 de 2011 in the juristiction of XXXX that regulates over the charge that occured in XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX. Ensure Navy Federal complies with all Regulation Z requirements for billing error resolution. \n\nXXXX. Take appropriate enforcement action against Navy Federal for these violations. \n\nAttached Documents : XXXX. XXXX signed confession and refund promise XXXX. Colombian court order proving illegal service XXXX. Criminal complaint filing against the merchant XXXX. Colombian Consumer Protection Law ( Ley XXXX ) excerpts XXXX. Navy Federal dispute denial communications XXXX. All transaction records and correspondence Certification : I certify that the information provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T01:52:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30601","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18553471","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-01-08T01:36:24.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Navy Federal wrongfully characterized this as a \" merchant <em>dispute</em> '' rather than a <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> <em>involving</em> fraudulent <em>charges</em>. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Provide Provisional Credit During <em>Investigation</em> For <em>disputes</em> over {$50.00}, Regulation Z requires the creditor to either : Complete its <em>investigation</em> within XXXX <em>billing</em> cycles, or Provide a provisional credit while <em>investigating</em>. \nNavy Federal failed to provide provisional credit or resolve the <em>dispute</em> within the required timeframe. \n\nXXXX."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[23.015537,"18553471"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19210802","_score":20.653362,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, I filed approximately XXXX billing disputes with American Express related to charges from a single merchant ( a mobile game developer ). The disputes were filed properly and in good faith after issues arose regarding the service provided. \n\nAmerican Express initially credited some disputes, including several smaller transactions and several larger transactions ( for example, a {$490.00} charge that was credited as a result of our investigation ). However, a substantial number of disputestotaling approximately {$58000.00} $ XXXXwere denied. \n\nAfter the disputes were initiated, the merchant removed or materially restricted my access to the service, preventing meaningful use of the digital goods unless the disputed amounts were repaid. I have not had access to the product since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted updated escalation materials to American Express documenting this loss of access as new material information and requested supervisory or manual review. Despite this, many disputes were denied again using generic language such as after reviewing the information provided, the charge is valid, without addressing the loss of access or explaining how the new evidence was evaluated. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, while disputes were still pending and under review, American Express sent a message stating that it was monitoring the frequency of my disputes and warning that continued dispute activity could result in permanent account cancellation if American Express determined that disputes were not being exercised in good faith. \n\nIdentical disputes involving the same merchant, timeframe, dispute reason ( goods not as described ), and documentation were treated inconsistentlysome were reviewed and credited, while many others were denied without explanation. \n\nI made extensive efforts to resolve this directly with American Express, including multiple dispute submissions, reopenings, escalations, and submission of additional documentation. Despite these efforts, many disputes were denied again without meaningful explanation or acknowledgment of the new information. \n\nI am requesting that American Express conduct a proper manual review of the remaining denied disputes, explain how the evidence was evaluated, correct any procedural or categorization errors, and issue appropriate credits where services were not rendered or access was improperly restricted.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-03T15:18:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"115XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19210802","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-02-03T15:08:25.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, I filed approximately XXXX <em>billing</em> <em>disputes</em> with American Express related to <em>charges</em> from a single merchant ( a mobile game developer ). The <em>disputes</em> were filed properly and in good faith after issues arose regarding the service provided. \n\nAmerican Express initially credited some <em>disputes</em>, including several smaller transactions and several larger transactions ( for example, a {$490.00} <em>charge</em> that was credited as a result of our <em>investigation</em> )."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[20.653362,"19210802"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19967239","_score":20.011248,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Summary I am filing this complaint due to Currents repeated failure to properly investigate multiple dispute claims and their refusal to issue required provisional credits under federal law. \nThe disputes involve the following transactions : {$72.00} Movie ticket transaction ( service never rendered ; showing indicated location was closed ; order canceled immediately ) {$30.00} Related unresolved charge still not refunded {$150.00} XXXX XXXX  ( membership cancellation dispute ; merchant continued billing after cancellation ) {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( disputed charge ; goods/services not properly resolved ) {$1500.00} XXXX ( XXXX disputed transaction requiring full investigation ) Despite timely notice of these disputes, Current has either : Closed claims within days without meaningful investigation, Requested repetitive documentation without resolving the matter, Refused to issue provisional credits, or Failed to provide written findings explaining their determinations. \nRegulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), financial institutions must : Conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of an error.\n\nComplete the investigation within 10 business days XXXX XXXX credit the consumers account while the investigation continues ( up to 45 days in certain cases ). \nProvide written explanation of findings. \nCurrent has failed to provide provisional credit for these disputes despite exceeding the 10-business-day window. They have also refused to meaningfully investigate certain claims and have prematurely closed cases.\n\nFailure to follow these procedures constitutes noncompliance with federal consumer protection law. \nPattern of Improper Dispute Handling This is not an isolated incident. There appears to be a pattern of : Rapid claim closures without full review, Denial without detailed written explanation, Failure to issue provisional credits, Shifting the burden entirely onto the consumer.\n\nThese practices may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices ( UDAP ).\n\nFinancial Harm The total disputed amount exceeds {$1700.00}. The refusal to credit these funds has caused financial hardship and instability. One of the transactions alone ( {$1500.00} ) is substantial and should have triggered heightened investigative review.\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Current to : Immediately issue provisional credits for all disputed transactions.\n\nConduct full, documented investigations compliant with Regulation E.\n\nRefund the {$72.00} and {$30.00} charges related to the canceled movie service. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$150.00} XXXX XXXX dispute. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute. \nConduct a comprehensive review of the {$1500.00} XXXX transaction. \nProvide written documentation of all investigative findings. \nReview and correct their dispute-handling policies to ensure federal compliance. \nI am requesting regulatory intervention due to Currents repeated failure to follow federally mandated dispute resolution procedures.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T16:20:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77581","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19967239","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2026-03-04T16:03:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>disputes</em> <em>involve</em> the following transactions : {$72.00} Movie ticket transaction ( service never <em>rendered</em> ; showing indicated location was closed ; order canceled immediately ) {$30.00} Related unresolved <em>charge</em> still not refunded {$150.00} XXXX XXXX  ( membership cancellation <em>dispute</em> ; merchant continued <em>billing</em> after cancellation ) {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( <em>disputed</em> <em>charge</em> ; goods/services not properly resolved ) {$1500.00} XXXX ( XXXX <em>disputed</em> transaction requiring full <em>investigation</em>"]},"sort":[20.011248,"19967239"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4438486","_score":19.524141,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On and/or around XX/XX/XXXX, the Complainant discovered an erroneous charge on the Barclay account for the amount of {$71.00}, made on XX/XX/XXXX, from merchant. \n\nTherefore, Complainant opened a dispute claim through credit card Dispute Department ( Case # : XXXX ). Complainant contents that merchant erroneously charged Complainants Mastercard {$71.00}, for a service that was under a false account and under an address in error. In fact, according to merchants Customer Care/Services determined that the account was not established and was non-existent and should not have generated any charges for the non-existent account and against Complainant. During repeated phone conversations between the merchants various operators, merchant stated to refund Complainant {$71.00} immediately and/or by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nNotwithstanding, merchant had failed to refund the Complainant for said {$71.00} and as promised by the merchant. Based upon a priori circumstances, merchant is a complex service and comprised of various sectors and levels when faced with customer service. According to merchant, there are more than one customer service representative and more than several sectors to each merchants client. Therefore, it is common for merchant to make a simple error as information is mixed up, through various channels in the business service sector. Merchant contents that once an error is identified through its quality control department, merchant will make all necessary adjustments to correct the error. \n\nIn this case, the error was discovered by Complainant however, merchant failed to make proper correction/s for their own error and failed to refund Complainants Mastercard ( {$71.00} ). As Complainant presented this matter to the merchant, merchant stated that a refund would be provided within a week and/or up to a months time. Despite merchants statement/s, merchant NEVER refunded Complainant.\n\nTherefore, Complainant opened a dispute claim with Respondent Mastercard Dispute Services in an effort to rightfully reverse the erroneous charge/s back to merchant. Respondent credit card dispute investigated Complainants claim and during a phone conversation on XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent investigator requested any proof that service was not rendered on the account and that Complainant did not authorize any service on the account. \n\nHence, on XX/XX/XXXX Complainant provided Respondents Dispute Department with the following to support Complainants claim/s thereof, EXHIBIT 1 - Renters contract Complainant resided in XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX and moved to XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX EXHIBIT 2 - Utility Bills show that Complainant resided at an address of XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Complainant moved from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, evidence shows that Complainant NEVER resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX as merchant wrongfully claim/s, EXHIBIT 2 - Utility Bills show that Complainant resided at an address of XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Complainant moved from address on XX/XX/XXXX ), EXHIBIT 3 - Text messages show that Complainant refused service at address in error, XXXX  XXXX XXXX, EXHIBIT 3a - Recorded phone conversations between Complainant and Merchant Merchant admitted error and promised to reimburse charge for {$71.00}, EXHIBIT 4 On XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant provided Respondent with details proving that Merchant was in error and charged Complainants account based on frivolous claim/s, and, EXHIBIT 5 On XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant provided Respondent with additional information details proving that Merchant was in error and charged Complainants account based on frivolous claim/s. \n\nThe documented evidence provided by the Complainant and delivered to Respondent Dispute Department, Respondent did take into consideration supporting documentation and failed to include the evidence that would disprove merchants claim/s and support Complainants position in the case overall. Evidence provided by the Complainant such as ; Complainants Renters Agreement, Utility Bills and Text Messages prove that Complainant did not authorize to service the address in question ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Text Messages, Recorded Phone call conversation/s between the merchant and the Complainant prove that Complainant did not authorize and/or refused any service at the address in question yet, the merchant proceeded to create and generate a bill as if service were rendered at the error address from XXXX of XXXX and through XX/XX/XXXX. During recorded statement/s between Complainant and/or merchants service operator/s, merchant admitted that merchant was responsible for the error and merchant would reimburse Complainant {$71.00} on and/or before XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, merchant admitted that merchant mistakenly billed the Complainant {$71.00} identified a wrong address of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAccording to the Respondents Dispute Department, by conjecture it appears that during Respondents investigation into the dispute claim, merchant purposely misled and provided false information to Respondents despite evidence gathered and collected by Complainant that would prove otherwise. At any regard, merchants tort feasance represent a level of depravity and prevarication in this case. Therefore, Complainant has followed through and opened a separate Consumer fraud case against merchant and currently seeking a third-party assistance into this separate case matter. \n\nDespite the overwhelming evidence to support Complainants claim, Barclays Dispute Department closed the dispute case based on merchants terms and conditions. Notwithstanding, the Respondent failed to take into consideration the preeminent factors and circumstances of the case. Instead, Respondent Dispute Department based their determination on a non sequitur in reference to merchants terms and conditions. Furthermore, on the basis of Respondent 's determination, the \" merchant 's terms and conditions '' DO NOT SUPPORT MERCHANT 'S CLAIM WHATSOEVER! THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT MERCHANT CREATED AND ENACTED UPON A FALSIFIED ACCOUNT AND/OR \" ACCOUNT IN ERROR '' THAT WAS USED TO WRONGFULLY CHARGE AGAINST CLIENT AND ILLEGALLY TAKE CLIENT 'S MONIES UNDER FALSE PRETENSE/S. Hence, Respondent 's reference to merchant 's terms and conditions do not support nor satisfy any reasonable reasoning to disprove Complainant 's claim and/or \" close '' Complainant 's dispute case thereof and/or hereof.\n\nAlthough Complainant provided the Respondents Dispute Department with viable evidence in support of Complainant, the Respondent failed to follow the basic standard of principles when evaluating, analyzing in determining a justifiable decision based upon preeminent factors and/or viable evidence to consider in parity. Complainant admonishes the fact that a decision that is based upon nonpareil terms and conditions only presents a level of quandary to the investigating party ( Respondents Dispute Department, et. al. ) and opens a grievance pertaining to ( but not limited to ) ethical and/or moral conduct under merchant fair business practices and standards, under Federal and State regulatory statutes thereof and/or hereof. With respect to investigating any and/or all fraudulent claim/s, careful attention must be given to the strict procedural requirements under Federal regulatory mandates that involve the investigative processes and/or procedural practices overall. Concomitant to Federal and State guidelines against fraudulent charges by the merchant, a decision that is proven to be nonpareil and/or based upon frivolous reasoning corollary may and/or may not impede upon the Consumers rights overall.\n\n( Note : Merchant is engaging in illegal activity under falsified pretense by charging and taking monies from Client. ) Complainant asked merchant to disengage in illegal, fraudulent charges against complainants account and to lawfully return both credit/s of each at {$71.00} ( combined total of {$140.00} ) back to complainants Mastercard account and owed back to the complainant.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-07T11:25:49.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"75189","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4438486","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2021-06-07T10:55:35.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Therefore, Complainant opened a <em>dispute</em> claim with Respondent Mastercard <em>Dispute</em> Services in an effort to rightfully reverse the erroneous <em>charge/s</em> back to merchant. Respondent credit card <em>dispute</em> <em>investigated</em> Complainants claim and during a phone conversation on XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent <em>investigator</em> requested any proof that service was not <em>rendered</em> on the account and that Complainant did not authorize any service on the account."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[19.524141,"4438486"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19695150","_score":16.890587,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Citibank , N.A . Fraud & Dispute Resolution Team XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX RE : FORMAL COMPLAINT Erroneous Dispute Closure & Failure to Properly Investigate Fraudulent Transaction Case ID : XXXX Card Ending : XXXX Amount : {$650.00} Transaction Date : XX/XX/XXXX Citi Fraud & Dispute Resolution Team, I am writing to formally escalate and protest Citis XX/XX/XXXX decision to close my dispute ( Case ID : XXXX ) in favor of XXXX XXXX XXXX Seating. This closure was issued without any contact with me by phone, email, or any other means of communication, and was based on an incorrect classification of my claim as a billing error. This is not a billing error this is a case of consumer fraud and material merchandise misrepresentation by a merchant on the XXXX platform, and I am entitled to full protection under the Fair Credit Billing Act. \n\nI. BACKGROUND AND FACTS On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased an XXXX Chair by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for {$650.00}, charged to my Citi XXXX card ending in XXXX. The XXXX listing specified the item condition as XXXX XXXX XXXX, defined by XXXX as : An item in excellent, new condition with no functional defects. \n\nWhat I received on XX/XX/XXXX was materially and fundamentally different from what was advertised : The chair was a different XXXX and a different model than what was depicted in the listing images and described in the title. \nThe chair had significant, visible damage deep scratches and pitting on both armrests and the base, completely inconsistent with any definition of XXXX or XXXX XXXX condition. \nThe item was delivered by XXXX and left outside in the rain. The original packaging became saturated and structurally unusable. \nThe sellers own customer service ( Support ID XXXX ) did not dispute the damage when I raised the issue, confirming the condition of the chair. \n\nXXXX. THE RETURN WAS RENDERED IMPOSSIBLE BY THE SELLER Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, I made repeated and documented good-faith attempts to return the chair under the sellers Free Returns policy. The seller provided a prepaid XXXXx label but imposed an impossible condition : The seller required the item to be returned in the original box only. The original box was destroyed by rain during XXXX delivery and was confirmed by XXXX  to be unusable for a return shipment. \nXXXX informed me that new packaging materials for a chair of this size would cost approximately {$55.00}. The prepaid return label provided by the seller did not cover these costs. \nDespite multiple requests, the seller refused to provide a return label inclusive of packaging costs or arrange pickup of the damaged item. \nThe sellers listing prominently advertises Free Returns, yet their return process forces the defrauded buyer to incur out-of-pocket expenses. This is deceptive and rendered the return process effectively impossible. \n\nXXXX. CITIS INVESTIGATION WAS DEFICIENT Citis closure of this dispute was fundamentally flawed on multiple grounds : XXXX. No Contact With the Cardholder. At no point did Citi contact me by phone, email, text, or any other means during the investigation. The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter was the first and only communication I received after submitting my dispute materials. An investigation conducted without engaging the cardholder can not be considered a good-faith investigation. \nXXXX. Incorrect Dispute Classification. Citi characterized this dispute as a billing error, which is factually and legally incorrect. This is a dispute for goods significantly not as described under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666i. A billing error concerns an unauthorized charge or incorrect amount. My dispute involves the receipt of merchandise that was materially misrepresented a separate and independently actionable consumer protection claim. By applying the wrong framework, Citi failed to evaluate the evidence under the correct legal standard. \nXXXX. Submitted Evidence Was Disregarded. I provided a comprehensive evidence package including : ( a ) the full XXXX message thread showing the seller acknowledging damage and refusing adequate return accommodations ; ( b ) photographs documenting the damaged chair ; ( c ) the original XXXX listing confirming XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX condition ; ( d ) XXXX order details ; ( XXXX ) the cancelled return request with documented reason ; and ( f ) my signed and completed dispute form. The closure letters generic statement that documentation or facts provided do not support the billing error dispute claim is impossible to reconcile with a thorough review of this evidence under the correct dispute category. \nXXXX. Unjustified Preference for the Merchant. The outcome reflects a reflexive deference to XXXX as a large platform rather than an objective review of the documented facts. The FCBA dispute process exists specifically to protect cardholders in situations like this. \n\nIV. LEGAL BASIS Under FCBA 1666i ( 15 U.S.C. ), I have the right to assert against Citi all claims and defenses arising out of a credit card transaction where : ( XXXX ) the transaction exceeds {$50.00} ; ( XXXX ) the transaction occurred within XXXX miles of my billing address or in the same state ; and ( XXXX ) I made a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant. All three criteria are met. The merchant is located in XXXX, as is my billing address ; the amount is {$650.00} ; and I documented exhaustive efforts to resolve the matter with XXXX XXXX and XXXX before and during this dispute. \n\nV. FORMAL DEMANDS I formally request that Citi take the following actions : XXXX. Immediately reopen Case ID XXXX and re-investigate under the correct FCBA category : merchandise significantly not as described. \nXXXX. Issue a permanent credit of {$650.00} to my card ending in XXXX based on the documented fraud and misrepresentation by the seller. \nXXXX. Contact me directly by phone or email to discuss this complaint and confirm receipt of this letter. \nXXXX. Confirm in writing that the disputed {$650.00} will not accrue interest or fees while this re-investigation is pending. \n\nVI. NOTICE OF FURTHER ACTION If Citi fails to resolve this matter in good faith, I intend to file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), and the XXXX Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( DFPI ). I will also pursue all remedies available under Californias Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Business Practices Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \n\nXXXX. XXXX Billing Disputes Has Received below Documents : XXXX listing ( Item # XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with Free Returns Complete XXXX message thread with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Photographs of damaged chair armrests XXXX XXXX Details ( Order # XXXX, Delivered XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX XXXX request cancellation with written explanation Completed and signed Citi XXXX form ( signed XX/XX/XXXX ) Email to XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX with all attachments Citi XXXX response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and closure letter dated XX/XX/XXXX I anticipate a written response within 30 days, as mandated by the FCBA . This complaint necessitates immediate attention and a comprehensive, good-faith examination of all evidence submitted. Additionally, I currently hold a balance of {$37000.00}, and I transferred my banking to Citi from XXXX. This situation would not have occurred at XXXX. The customer service at Citi is exceptionally poor ; despite multiple attempts to contact them, I have not received any response. Consequently, I intend to close my account ( Checking and Credit ) due to the blatant fraud and the inadequate handling of the matter by Citi. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Citi AAdvantage XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-23T02:54:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94506","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19695150","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-02-23T02:46:02.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["An <em>investigation</em> conducted without engaging the cardholder can not be considered a good-faith <em>investigation</em>. \nXXXX. Incorrect <em>Dispute</em> Classification. Citi characterized this <em>dispute</em> as a <em>billing</em> <em>error</em>, which is factually and legally incorrect. This is a <em>dispute</em> for goods significantly not as described under the Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666i. A <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> concerns an unauthorized <em>charge</em> or incorrect amount."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[16.890587,"19695150"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22436411","_score":16.254755,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX Via Fax : XXXX U.S. Bank Cardmember Dispute XXXX Department Re : Formal Chargeback Dispute and Request for Reversal of Charges Dispute Claim No. : XXXX U.S. Bank Card Ending : XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} Dispute Claim No. : XXXX U.S. Bank Card Ending : XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX FORMAL DISPUTE OF CREDIT CARD CHARGES, BREACH OF CONTRACT COMPLAINT, MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM, AND REQUEST FOR CHARGEBACK RELIEF To Whom It May Concern : I respectfully submit this formal dispute regarding the above-referenced credit card transactions processed by XXXX XXXX in connection with the purchase of its `` Automation Trading Strategies '' software and related services. \nOn or about XX/XX/year>, I purchased XXXX XXXX 's automated trading software system for the purpose of generating passive income through algorithmic trading. The software and related materials were subsequently delivered electronically on XX/XX/year>. \nAfter delivery and installation, I discovered that the software failed to perform as represented by the merchant. Specifically, the software did not properly integrate, connect, or function with the trading platforms and systems represented by XXXX XXXX as compatible, including XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX-hosted trading environments. As a result, the automated trading functionality that was a material component of the transaction could not be utilized as advertised. \n\nImmediately upon discovering these deficiencies, I contacted XXXX XXXX representatives identified as XXXX and XXXX and requested a full refund. My request was based upon the software 's inability to perform as represented and the merchant 's advertised 60-Day Money- Back Guarantee. Despite timely notice and multiple requests, XXXX XXXX failed and/or refused to honor its refund commitment. \nFACTUAL BASIS FOR THE DISPUTE The disputed transactions are based upon the following grounds : 1. Goods and Services Not as Described The software delivered materially differed from the functionality and compatibility represented by the merchant prior to purchase. The software failed to operate as advertised and failed to provide the promised automated trading capabilities.\n\n2. Defective and Non-Conforming Product The product supplied was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose and failed to perform the essential functions represented during the sales process. The inability of the software to properly connect and execute within the represented trading environment rendered the product substantially unusable. \n3. Breach of Contract XXXX XXXX represented that customers would be protected by a 60-Day Money-Back Guarantee. After promptly requesting a refund due to the software 's nonperformance, the merchant failed and/or refused to honor its advertised guarantee, constituting a material breach of contract.\n\n4. Negligent Misrepresentation and Deceptive Business Practices The merchant 's representations regarding software functionality, compatibility, reliability, and performance appear materially inconsistent with the product actually delivered. The circumstances raise substantial concerns regarding misleading representations used to induce the transaction. \nAPPLICABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS I respectfully request that U.S. Bank evaluate this dispute under all applicable federal consumer protection laws and cardholder protections, including but not limited to : Fair Credit Billing Act ( \" FCBA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq., which provides consumers the right to dispute billing errors and transactions involving goods or services that are defective, materially misrepresented, or not delivered as agreed.\n\nTruth in Lending Act ( \" TILA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, which provide protections for consumers disputing credit card transactions involving nonconforming goods and services.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, including materially misleading representations regarding products and services. \nConsumer protection standards enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( \" CFPB '' ), including requirements relating to fair billing investigations, consumer dispute rights, and protections against deceptive business practices. \nTo the extent that the merchant represented functionality, compatibility, or performance that was not actually delivered, I respectfully request that these facts be considered in determining whether the disputed transactions qualify for chargeback relief and reimbursement. \nREQUEST FOR RELIEF Accordingly, I respectfully request that U.S. Bank : 1. Reopen and conduct a comprehensive investigation of Dispute Claims XXXX and XXXX ; 2. Reverse and permanently credit the disputed transactions totaling {$5000.00} ; 3. Preserve all rights and protections available under the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, applicable card-network regulations, and consumer protection laws ; 4. Review all supporting evidence, including communications with the merchant, refund requests, screenshots, installation records, and marketing representations ; and 5. Provide written notification of the investigation findings and final determination. \nI certify that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and supported by documentation available for review. \nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for conducting a thorough and impartial investigation. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX Supporting Documentation Included Credit card transaction records Merchant invoices and receipts Email and written communications with XXXX XXXX Refund requests submitted to XXXX and XXXX XXXX of software installation and functionality issues Marketing materials and representations Evidence relating to the advertised 60-Day Money-Back Guarantee Total Amount in Dispute : {$5000.00} Claim No. XXXX ( Card Ending XXXX ) : {$2500.00} Claim No. XXXX ( Card Ending XXXX ) : {$2500.00}","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-21T17:18:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"93550","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22436411","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2026-05-21T17:05:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank evaluate this <em>dispute</em> under all applicable federal consumer protection laws and cardholder protections, including but not limited to : Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act ( \" FCBA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq., which provides consumers the right to <em>dispute</em> <em>billing</em> <em>errors</em> and transactions <em>involving</em> goods or services that are defective, materially misrepresented, or not delivered as agreed."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[16.254755,"22436411"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22431500","_score":16.066628,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX Via Fax : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Cardmember Dispute Resolution Department Re : Formal Chargeback Dispute and Request for Reversal of Charge Dispute Claim No. : XXXX XXXX XXXX Card Ending : XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX FORMAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE , BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE TO HONOR MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE, AND REQUEST FOR CHARGEBACK RELIEF To Whom It May Concern : I respectfully submit this formal billing dispute and request for chargeback relief regarding the above-referenced transaction processed by XXXX XXXX in connection with the purchase of its \" XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' software and related services. \nOn or about XX/XX/year>, I purchased XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  automated trading software solution with the expectation that it would function as represented and provide automated trading capabilities through integration with supported trading platforms and XXXX-hosted environments. The software and related materials were delivered electronically on XX/XX/year>. \nFollowing installation and review, I discovered that the product failed to perform as represented. \nSpecifically, the software did not properly connect, integrate, or function with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX-hosted trading systems, preventing the automated trading functionality that was a material reason for my purchase. As a result, the product delivered was substantially different from the functionality advertised by the merchant and could not be utilized for its intended purpose. \n\nImmediately upon discovering these deficiencies on XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX XXXX representatives identified as XXXX and XXXX and requested a full refund. My request was based upon the software 's failure to function as represented and the merchant 's advertised 60- Day Money-Back Guarantee. Despite providing prompt notice and requesting resolution, XXXX XXXX failed and/or refused to honor its refund commitment.\n\nBASIS FOR DISPUTE 1. Merchandise and Services Not as Described The software delivered did not conform to the representations made by the merchant concerning compatibility, functionality, performance, and operational capability. The product materially differed from what was advertised during the sales process.\n\n2. Defective and Non-Conforming Product The software failed to perform its intended purpose and could not be utilized in the manner represented by the merchant. The inability to establish functional integration with the represented trading environment rendered the product substantially unusable.\n\n3. Breach of Contract XXXX XXXX represented that purchasers would be protected by a 60-Day Money-Back Guarantee. Upon discovering the software 's deficiencies, I promptly exercised my right to request a refund. The merchant 's refusal to honor its stated guarantee constitutes a material breach of the contractual terms under which the transaction was induced.\n\n4. Negligent Misrepresentation and Potential Deceptive Trade Practices Based upon the functionality delivered compared to the representations made during the sales process, there are substantial concerns regarding material misrepresentations concerning the software 's compatibility, reliability, and operational performance. I request that these circumstances be considered in evaluating the validity of the disputed transaction.\n\nAPPLICABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITIES I respectfully request that XXXX XXXX XXXX investigate this dispute pursuant to all applicable consumer protection laws and cardholder protections, including : Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq., providing consumers the right to dispute billing errors and transactions involving goods or services that are defective, materially misrepresented, or not delivered as agreed.\n\nTruth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, which provide protections for credit card holders disputing transactions involving nonconforming goods, defective services, or material misrepresentations.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, including materially misleading representations regarding products and services.\n\nConsumer protection standards enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) concerning fair billing practices, consumer dispute investigations, and protection against deceptive commercial conduct.\n\nTo the extent the merchant represented software capabilities and compatibility that were not actually delivered, I respectfully request that such representations be evaluated in determining eligibility for chargeback relief and reimbursement.\n\nREQUEST FOR RELIEF Accordingly, I respectfully request that XXXX XXXX XXXX : 1. Reopen and conduct a comprehensive investigation of Claim No. XXXX ; 2. Reverse and permanently credit the disputed transaction in the amount of {$2500.00} ; 3. Preserve and enforce all consumer rights available under the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, applicable card-network dispute rules, and related consumer protection laws ; 4. Review all supporting evidence, including communications with the merchant, refund requests, screenshots, installation records, and promotional representations ; and 5. Provide written confirmation of the results of the investigation and final determination.\n\nI certify that the statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and are supported by documentation available for review.\n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for conducting a thorough and impartial investigation of this disputed transaction.\n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Enclosures Credit card transaction records Merchant invoices and receipts Email and written communications with XXXX XXXX Refund requests submitted to merchant representatives Screenshots documenting software functionality and integration issues Marketing materials and product representations Evidence relating to the advertised 60-Day Money-Back Guarantee Claim No. : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Card Ending : XXXX Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-21T15:45:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"93550","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22431500","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2026-05-21T15:33:17.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["APPLICABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITIES I respectfully request that XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>investigate</em> this <em>dispute</em> pursuant to all applicable consumer protection laws and cardholder protections, including : Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq., providing consumers the right to <em>dispute</em> <em>billing</em> <em>errors</em> and transactions <em>involving</em> goods or services that are defective, materially misrepresented, or not delivered as agreed."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[16.066628,"22431500"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8265912","_score":15.79881,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB. This letter serves as a formal request for CashApp compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$800.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX, XXXX And XXXX, in the amount of {$800.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. I appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX  representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \n\nCash App decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation.\n\n2. Financial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \n\nXXXX. Ethical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. \n\nThese regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \n\nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of XXXX, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \n\nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Cash App to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Cash App commitment to ethical banking standards. \n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Cash App to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. A prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \n\nXXXX. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. Under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \n\nXXXX. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T02:59:21.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8265912","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-02T02:18:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I appreciate the due diligence performed by your <em>investigation</em> team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no <em>error</em> occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[15.79881,"8265912"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8261432","_score":15.79881,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Bank of America. Bank of America correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Closed. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. \nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E. \nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX commitment to ethical banking standards. \nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. \nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:49:12.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8261432","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-01-31T16:36:24.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I appreciate the due diligence performed by your <em>investigation</em> team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no <em>error</em> occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[15.79881,"8261432"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8255451","_score":15.706659,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Navy Federal Credit Union Denial of Claims. Navy Federal Credit Union emails dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Resolved. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern Navy Federal Credit Unions compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice.\n\nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ).\n\nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms.\n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX XXXX services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX XXXX billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances.\n\nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX XXXX representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful.\n\nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship.\n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place Navy Federal Credit Union in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions.\n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. XXXX XXXX XXXX  actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Navy Federal Credit Union to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Navy Federal Credit Unions commitment to ethical banking standards.\n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Navy Federal Credit Union to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer.\n\nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance.\n\nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards.\n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request.\n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery.\n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings.\n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit.\n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality.\n\nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:27:16.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8255451","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-01-31T15:52:22.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I appreciate the due diligence performed by your <em>investigation</em> team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no <em>error</em> occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[15.706659,"8255451"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20234258","_score":14.167717,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"MORTGAGE ACCOUNT DISPUTE LETTER AND ADUITQUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST UNDER RESPA AND FDCPA DISPUTE Date : XXXXDelivery Method : Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested TO : XXXX XXXX ( formerly XXXX XXXX, XXXX )/ Mortgage RocketXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX FROM : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Georgia XXXX XXXXACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION AND DOCUMENT PURPOSE Loan Number : XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Georgia XXXX Borrower Name : XXXX XXXX Current Account Balance : {$86000.00} This correspondence constitutes both a Qualified Written Request under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. Part 1024, and a formal dispute under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. This letter is being sent to your designated address for qualified written requestsand disputes as required by federal law.\n\nII.LEGAL BASIS AND AUTHORITY This request is made pursuant to my rights under : 1.Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, which requiresmortgage servicers to respond to qualified written requests regarding borrower accounts andto investigate and resolve errors in mortgage servicing ; Page 2 2. RESPA Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, which establish specific procedures for error resolution and information requests ; 3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., which provides consumers the right to dispute debts and requires debt collectors to cease collection activities during dispute resolution ; 4. Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., regarding accurate disclosure of loan terms and payment application.\n\nUnder these federal statutes, you are required to acknowledge receipt of this request within five ( 5 ) business days and provide a substantive response within thirty ( 30 ) business days of receipt.\n\nIII. STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND BASIS FOR DISPUTE I hereby formally dispute the accuracy and validity of charges, fees, and payment applications on the above-referenced mortgage account. I have reason to believe that errors exist in my account based on the following circumstances : Background Information This mortgage loan originated in XXXX with an original loan amount of {$120000.00}. After twenty-eight ( 28 ) years of payments, the current balance of {$86000.00} appears inconsistent with normal amortization schedules. The account has been subject to improper servicing practices, including but not limited to : 1. Involvement in a bankruptcy proceeding filed by my ex-wife, despite the property being awarded to me by court order ; 2. Failure to provide proper notice during bankruptcy proceedings ; 3. Suspension of payment processing and account discussions during bankruptcy without proper legal basis ; 4. Improper application of mortgage assistance funds exceeding {$12000.00} ; 5. Assessment of unauthorized legal fees related to dismissed bankruptcy proceedings ; 6. Accumulation of unexplained corporate advance charges.\n\nSpecific Disputed Items A. Corporate Advances- {$5100.00} I dispute the validity, accuracy, and legal basis for corporate advance charges totaling {$5100.00}. I have no knowledge of authorizing these advances, receiving services corresponding to these charges, or being provided with proper notice and documentation of these fees as required by federal law.\n\nB. Legal Fees - {$3300.00} Page 3 I dispute the assessment of legal fees in the amount of {$3300.00} related to bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy case was dismissed as moot by the court, as evidenced by the court communication from XXXX XXXX, Courtroom Deputy Clerk for Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX, stating that Counsel for XXXX XXXX, XXXX  Known as XXXX XXXX, has withdrawn its Motion for Relief from Stay and Motion for Relief from the Co-Debtor Stay and the motion is now moot. No legal action should have been necessary, and these fees were improperly assessed. \nC. Payment Application Errors- Entire Loan History ( XXXX ) I dispute the proper application of payments throughout the life of this loan, including but not limited to mortgage assistance funds exceeding {$12000.00} that were applied to my account. Over {$6000.00} of these funds have no explanation regarding their application. Additionally, regular monthly payments may have been improperly applied, resulting in an artificially inflated account balance.\n\nIV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION REQUESTS Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1024.36, I hereby request that you provide the following information and documentation within thirty ( 30 ) days : A. Complete Loan File Documentation 1. Original loan documents and all modifications, amendments, or changes to loan terms ; 2. Complete payment history from loan origination ( XXXX ) to present, showing : Date of each payment received Amount of each payment Application of each payment to principal, interest, escrow, fees, and other charges Running balance after each payment application 3. All correspondence, notes, and communications in the loan file ; 4. Documentation of any transfers or assignments of the loan ; 5. All insurance and property tax records maintained in connection with the loan.\n\nB. Corporate Advances Documentation 1. Detailed breakdown of all corporate advance charges totaling {$5100.00}, including : Date each advance was made Specific purpose and description of each advance Legal authority for making each advance Documentation supporting the necessity of each advance Invoices, receipts, or other supporting documentation for services rendered Page 4 2. Notice provided to borrower regarding each corporate advance as required by law ; 3. Borrower authorization or consent for each corporate advance.\n\nC. Legal Fee Documentation 1. Complete documentation supporting the {$3300.00} legal fee assessment ; 2. Invoices from attorneys or law firms for services rendered ; 3. Court filings and documentation related to bankruptcy case XXXX ; 4. Documentation showing legal necessity for the services billed ; 5. Notice provided to borrower regarding legal fee assessment.\n\nD. Mortgage Assistance Funds Documentation 1. Complete records of mortgage assistance funds exceeding {$12000.00} applied to the account ; 2. Documentation showing how these funds were applied to principal, interest, fees, or other charges ; 3. Correspondence with government agencies or other entities providing assistance ; 4. Borrower notifications regarding receipt and application of assistance funds.\n\nV. CESSATION OF COLLECTION ACTIVITIES Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, I hereby request that you immediately cease all collection activities related to the disputed amounts until this dispute is fully investigated and resolved. This includes, but is not limited to : 1. Reporting negative information to credit reporting agencies ; 2. Initiating or continuing foreclosure proceedings ; 3. Assessing additional late fees, penalties, or charges ; 4. Making collection calls or sending collection letters ; 5. Pursuing any legal action related to the disputed amounts.\n\nYour failure to cease collection activities during the dispute period may constitute a violation of federal law.\n\nVI. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND TIMELINE Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35, you are required to : A. Acknowledgment ( 5 Business Days ) Provide written acknowledgment of receipt of this qualified written request within five ( 5 ) business days, including : Page 5 1. Date of receipt of this request ; 2. Statement that you are treating this as a qualified written request under RESPA ; 3. Contact information for further communications regarding this matter.\n\nB. Substantive Response ( 30 Business Days ) Provide a complete written response within thirty ( 30 ) business days, including : 1. Results of your investigation into each disputed item ; 2. Correction of any errors identified during your investigation ; 3. Provision of all requested documentation ; 4. Written explanation if you determine no error exists, including specific reasons for your determination ; 5. Contact information for further inquiries or appeals.\n\nVII. REQUESTED REMEDIES AND ACCOUNT CORRECTIONS If your investigation reveals errors in my account, I request the following remedies : A. Account Corrections 1. XXXX the balance on past due amounts as requested, reflecting proper payment application and removal of improper charges ; 2. Correction of payment history to accurately reflect all payments made since loan origination ; 3. Removal of all improperly assessed corporate advances totaling {$5100.00} ; 4. Removal of improper legal fees totaling {$3300.00} ; 5. Proper application of mortgage assistance funds with detailed accounting.\n\nB. Financial Remedies 1. Refund of all improperly collected fees, charges, and payments with interest as provided by law ; 2. Reversal of any capitalized amounts that were improperly added to the loan balance ; 3. Adjustment of loan balance to reflect accurate payment history and proper fee assessment.\n\nC. Credit Reporting Corrections 1. Correction of all inaccurate information reported to credit reporting agencies ; 2. Submission of corrected information to all credit reporting agencies that received inaccurate reports ; Page 6 3. Provision of written confirmation of credit reporting corrections.\n\nVIII. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND BORROWER RIGHTS A. Servicer Obligations Under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605, mortgage servicers have specific legal obligations to : 1. Acknowledge and respond to qualified written requests within required timeframes ; 2. Conduct reasonable investigations of alleged errors ; 3. Correct errors and provide appropriate remedies ; 4. Maintain accurate records and provide requested documentation.\n\nB. Violations and Enforcement Failure to comply with RESPA requirements may result in : 1. Individual liability for actual damages, including costs and attorney fees ; 2. Additional damages up to {$2000.00} for pattern or practice of noncompliance ; 3. Regulatory enforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ; 4. State regulatory action by the Georgia Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Division.\n\nC. Borrower Rights I reserve all rights under federal and state law, including but not limited to : 1. Filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ; 2. Filing complaints with the Georgia Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Division ; 3. Pursuing legal action for violations of RESPA, FDCPA, and other applicable laws ; 4. Seeking damages, attorney fees, and other relief as provided by law.\n\nIX. RECORD KEEPING AND COMMUNICATION This letter and all related communications should be maintained in my loan file as required by federal regulations. All future communications regarding this matter should be directed to my address listed above. I request that you provide a direct contact person and phone number for follow-up communications regarding this dispute.\n\nI expect your full cooperation in resolving these matters promptly and in accordance with federal law. Your timely and complete response will help avoid the need for regulatory complaints or legal action.\n\nPage 7 Borrower Signature : XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Certificate of Service : I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Mortgage Account Dispute Letter was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the above-named servicer at their designated address for qualified written requests on this XXXX day of XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-13T12:13:24.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"30038","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20234258","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2026-03-13T12:00:52.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Results of your <em>investigation</em> into each <em>disputed</em> item ; 2. Correction of any <em>errors</em> identified during your <em>investigation</em> ; 3. Provision of all requested documentation ; 4. Written explanation if you determine no <em>error</em> exists, including specific reasons for your determination ; 5. Contact information for further inquiries or appeals.\n\nVII. REQUESTED REMEDIES AND ACCOUNT CORRECTIONS If your <em>investigation</em> reveals <em>errors</em> in my account, I request the following remedies : A. Account Corrections 1."]},"sort":[14.167717,"20234258"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22643574","_score":13.899468,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, California XXXX XXXX XXXX Via Fax : XXXX Citibank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department Re : Supplemental Chargeback Dispute and Request for Reconsideration Dispute Claim No. : XXXX Merchant : XXXX XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} FORMAL DISPUTE, BREACH OF CONTRACT COMPLAINT, MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM, AND DEMAND FOR CHARGEBACK REVERSAL To Whom It May Concern : I respectfully submit this Supplemental Dispute Statement in support of my pending chargeback claim regarding XXXX XXXX and XXXX software and services purchased on XX/XX/year>. \nThis submission provides additional facts demonstrating that the merchant failed to provide goods and services as represented, failed to honor material contractual commitments, and failed to deliver the functionality, transparency, and account-management services that formed the basis of my purchasing decision. \n\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND On XX/XX/year>, I purchased XXXX XXXX 's automated trading software and related services after representations that the company would provide a professionally managed automated trading solution capable of operating through supported trading platforms and XXXXXXXX XXXX \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I was onboarded by representatives identified as XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, who assisted with connecting the XXXX XXXX dashboard, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX accounts, and XXXX software. Throughout the onboarding process, I understood that XXXX XXXX would actively manage the automated trading strategies, software integrations, account monitoring, and related technical operations associated with the program. \nInitially, certain accounts reflected positive performance. However, concerns quickly arose regarding the lack of transparency surrounding the operation of the automated trading strategies. \nAlthough I had access to the company 's dashboard, I did not have sufficient visibility into the actual XXXX chart activity, strategy XXXX, or operational controls governing the automated system. Despite repeated requests, access to critical monitoring information was delayed until approximately XX/XX/year>. \nAfter obtaining access, additional concerns emerged regarding the functionality and reliability of the services being provided. \n\nMATERIAL SERVICE FAILURES On or about XX/XX/year>, I observed that the XXXX XXXX dashboard ceased properly updating profit-and-loss information and account performance metrics. As a result, I was forced to independently access XXXX and other account portals in an attempt to determine actual account status and trading activity. This dashboard reporting function was represented as a key component of the service offering and was relied upon as part of my purchasing decision. \nDuring the same period, I discovered that XXXX separate {$50000.00} prop-firm challenge accounts had failed. Based upon the account-management representations made during onboarding, the risk controls allegedly in place, and the operational assurances provided by company representatives, such failures were unexpected and inconsistent with my understanding of the service being provided. \nI immediately contacted XXXX XXXX seeking clarification regarding : XXXX. Dashboard reporting failures ; XXXX. XXXX trading strategy management ; XXXX. Account-risk controls ; XXXX. Account performance results ; XXXX. Operational transparency ; XXXX. Refund eligibility ; and XXXX. The performance and protection representations described during the sales process. \nTo date, the concerns remain substantially unresolved. \n\nBREACH OF CONTRACT XXXX XXXX induced the transaction through representations regarding software functionality, account management, platform compatibility, operational oversight, and refund protections. \nThe merchant further represented that purchasers would be protected by a money-back guarantee. Despite timely requests for relief and notification of the substantial performance deficiencies described herein, the merchant failed and/or refused to provide the requested refund. \nSuch refusal constitutes a material breach of the contractual terms and representations under which the transaction was entered. \n\nGOODS AND SERVICES NOT AS DESCRIBED The goods and services received materially differed from the representations made during the sales process because : Critical platform functionality was unreliable or unavailable ; Dashboard reporting ceased functioning properly ; Transparency regarding strategy operation was inadequate ; Trading activity could not be independently verified as represented ; Account-management expectations were not fulfilled ; Performance-monitoring tools were deficient ; The overall service experience failed to conform to the representations relied upon when purchasing the product. \nThese deficiencies substantially impaired the value of the transaction and rendered the product and services materially different from what was advertised and sold. \n\nMISREPRESENTATION AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES The facts outlined above raise substantial concerns that material representations regarding functionality, compatibility, transparency, management oversight, operational performance, and refund protections may have been inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. \nConsumers purchasing automated trading software are entitled to rely upon the representations made during the sales process. When a merchant markets software as a managed automated solution while failing to provide the represented functionality, transparency, and contractual protections, the resulting transaction XXXX constitute a materially misrepresented sale warranting chargeback protection and consumer remedies. \n\nAPPLICABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITIES This dispute is submitted pursuant to and protected by : Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. ) Providing consumers the right to dispute billing errors involving goods or services not delivered as agreed, not received as represented, or materially deficient. \nTruth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) and Regulation Z Requiring fair dispute resolution procedures and protecting cardholders against improper charges involving defective, misrepresented, or undelivered goods and services.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) Prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts and practices in commerce, including material misrepresentations regarding products, services, performance capabilities, and contractual guarantees. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Consumer Billing Protections Requiring fair and reasonable investigation of disputed transactions and protection of consumers from improper billing practices. \n\nREQUEST FOR RELIEF Accordingly, I respectfully request that Citibank : XXXX. Reopen and fully investigate Claim No. XXXX ; 2. Review all onboarding communications, dashboard records, merchant correspondence, account-performance records, refund requests, screenshots, and related evidence ; XXXX. Determine that the disputed transaction constitutes goods and services not as described, breach of contract, and material misrepresentation ; XXXX. Reverse the disputed charge of {$2500.00} ; XXXX. Preserve all rights available under the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, applicable card-network dispute procedures, and all other consumer- protection laws ; and XXXX. Provide written confirmation of the results of the investigation. \n\nDECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the XXXX of California that the statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and based upon documentation, communications, and records currently available to me. \nRespectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, California XXXX XXXX XXXX Enclosures Citibank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Onboarding Records Dashboard Screenshots Refund Requests XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Documentation Marketing Materials and Advertisements Additional Supporting Evidence This version is stronger than the original because it incorporates the onboarding history, delayed access issues, dashboard failures, failed prop-firm accounts, unresolved support concerns, breach-of-contract arguments, and federal consumer-protection authorities while maintaining a professional legal tone.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-28T02:44:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"93550","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22643574","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-05-28T02:33:08.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["APPLICABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITIES This <em>dispute</em> is submitted pursuant to and protected by : Fair Credit <em>Billing</em> Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. ) Providing consumers the right to <em>dispute</em> <em>billing</em> <em>errors</em> <em>involving</em> goods or services not delivered as agreed, not received as represented, or materially deficient."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[13.899468,"22643574"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7339307","_score":13.775988,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX and Equifax continues to violate my consumer right by reporting my non public information without my written consent. \n\nXXXX XXXX stated in their terms and conditions that they would not share my information with anyone except the credit bureaus. The only true credit bureau is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and it does not furnish consumer reports. Equifax is a privately owned company that assumed the role to furnish consumer reports. \n\nIt is against federal law to report any financial history. My credit card information is considered financial history and should not be included in any reporting. \n\nPer the Privacy Act of 1974 as a federally protected consumer I have the right to opt out of my information being reported. \n1026.13 Billing error resolution.\n\n( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 1 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not made to the consumer or to a person who has actual, implied, or apparent authority to use the consumer 's credit card or open-end credit plan. \n\n( 2 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not identified in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( a ) ( 2 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ), as applicable, and 1026.8.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit for property or services not accepted by the consumer or the consumer 's designee, or not delivered to the consumer or the consumer 's designee as agreed.\n\n( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account. \n\n( 5 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of a computational or similar error of an accounting nature that is made by the creditor.\n\n( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence.\n\n( 7 ) The creditor 's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer 's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required. \n\n( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error. \n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures. \n\n( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( 3 ) May report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( 4 ) May not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report. \n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. A creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, and 1005.18 ( e ) as applicable, governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section if : ( 1 ) Except with respect to a prepaid account as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs under an agreement between the consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account ; or ( 2 ) With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature of a prepaid account where both are accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs when the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses both funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account and a credit extension from the credit feature with respect to a particular transaction.\n\n1026.12 Special credit card provisions.\n\n( a ) Issuance of credit cards. Regardless of the purpose for which a credit card is to be used, including business, commercial, or agricultural use, no credit card shall be issued to any person except : ( 1 ) In response to an oral or written request or application for the card; or ( 2 ) As a renewal of, or substitute for, an accepted credit card.\n\n( b ) Liability of cardholder for unauthorized use ( 1 ) ( i ) Definition of unauthorized use. For purposes of this section, the term unauthorized use means the use of a credit card by a person, other than the cardholder, who does not have actual, implied, or apparent authority for such use, and from which the cardholder receives no benefit.\n\n( ii ) Limitation on amount. The liability of a cardholder for unauthorized use of a credit card shall not exceed the lesser of {$50.00} or the amount of money, property, labor, or services obtained by the unauthorized use before notification to the card issuer under paragraph ( b ) ( 3 ) of this section.\n\n( 2 ) Conditions of liability. A cardholder shall be liable for unauthorized use of a credit card only if : ( i ) The credit card is an accepted credit card ; ( ii ) The card issuer has provided adequate notice of the cardholder 's maximum potential liability and of means by which the card issuer may be notified of loss or theft of the card. The notice shall state that the cardholder 's liability shall not exceed {$50.00} ( or any lesser amount ) and that the cardholder may give oral or written notification, and shall describe a means of notification ( for example, a telephone number, an address, or both ) ; and ( iii ) The card issuer has provided a means to identify the cardholder on the account or the authorized user of the card.\n\n( 3 ) Notification to card issuer. Notification to a card issuer is given when steps have been taken as may be reasonably required in the ordinary course of business to provide the card issuer with the pertinent information about the loss, theft, or possible unauthorized use of a credit card, regardless of whether any particular officer, employee, or agent of the card issuer does, in fact, receive the information. Notification may be given, at the option of the person giving it, in person, by telephone, or in writing. Notification in writing is considered given at the time of receipt or, whether or not received, at the expiration of the time ordinarily required for transmission, whichever is earlier.\n\n( 4 ) Effect of other applicable law or agreement. If state law or an agreement between a cardholder and the card issuer imposes lesser liability than that provided in this paragraph, the lesser liability shall govern.\n\n( 5 ) Business use of credit cards. If 10 or more credit cards are issued by one card issuer for use by the employees of an organization, this section does not prohibit the card issuer and the organization from agreeing to liability for unauthorized use without regard to this section. However, liability for unauthorized use may be imposed on an employee of the organization, by either the card issuer or the organization, only in accordance with this section.\n\n( c ) Right of cardholder to assert claims or defenses against card issuer ( 1 ) General rule. When a person who honors a credit card fails to resolve satisfactorily a dispute as to property or services purchased with the credit card in a consumer credit transaction, the cardholder may assert against the card issuer all claims ( other than tort claims ) and defenses arising out of the transaction and relating to the failure to resolve the dispute. The cardholder may withhold payment up to the amount of credit outstanding for the property or services that gave rise to the dispute and any finance or other charges imposed on that amount.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. If, in accordance with paragraph ( c ) ( 1 ) of this section, the cardholder withholds payment of the amount of credit outstanding for the disputed transaction, the card issuer shall not report that amount as delinquent until the dispute is settled or judgment is rendered.\n\n( 3 ) Limitations ( i ) General. The rights stated in paragraphs ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section apply only if : ( A ) The cardholder has made a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the person honoring the credit card ; and ( B ) The amount of credit extended to obtain the property or services that result in the assertion of the claim or defense by the cardholder exceeds {$50.00}, and the disputed transaction occurred in the same state as the cardholder 's current designated address or, if not within the same state, within 100 miles from that address.\n\n( ii ) Exclusion. The limitations stated in paragraph ( c ) ( 3 ) ( i ) ( B ) of this section shall not apply when the person honoring the credit card : ( A ) Is the same person as the card issuer ; ( B ) Is controlled by the card issuer directly or indirectly ; ( C ) Is under the direct or indirect control of a third person that also directly or indirectly controls the card issuer ; ( D ) Controls the card issuer directly or indirectly ; ( E ) Is a franchised dealer in the card issuer 's products or services ; or ( F ) Has obtained the order for the disputed transaction through a mail solicitation made or participated in by the card issuer.\n\n( d ) Offsets by card issuer prohibited ( 1 ) General rule. A card issuer may not take any action, either before or after termination of credit card privileges, to offset a cardholder 's indebtedness arising from a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer.\n\n( 2 ) Rights of the card issuer. This paragraph ( d ) does not alter or affect the right of a card issuer acting under state or Federal law to do any of the following with regard to funds of a cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer if the same procedure is constitutionally available to creditors generally : Obtain or enforce a consensual security interest in the funds ; attach or otherwise levy upon the funds ; or obtain or enforce a court order relating to the funds.\n\n( 3 ) Periodic deductions.\n\n( i ) This paragraph ( d ) does not prohibit a plan, if authorized in writing by the cardholder, under which the card issuer may periodically deduct all or part of the cardholder 's credit card debt from a deposit account held with the card issuer ( subject to the limitations in 1026.13 ( d ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n( ii ) With respect to a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in 1026.61, for purposes of this paragraph ( d ) ( 3 ), periodically means no more frequently than once per calendar month, such as on a monthly due date disclosed on the applicable periodic statement in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( b ) ( 11 ) ( i ) ( A ) or on an earlier date in each calendar month in accordance with a written authorization signed by the consumer.\n\n( e ) Prompt notification of returns and crediting of refunds.\n\n( 1 ) When a creditor other than the card issuer accepts the return of property or forgives a debt for services that is to be reflected as a credit to the consumer 's credit card account, that creditor shall, within 7 business days from accepting the return or forgiving the debt, transmit a credit statement to the card issuer through the card issuer 's normal channels for credit statements.\n\n( 2 ) The card issuer shall, within 3 business days from receipt of a credit statement, credit the consumer 's account with the amount of the refund.\n\n( 3 ) If a creditor other than a card issuer routinely gives cash refunds to consumers paying in cash, the creditor shall also give credit or cash refunds to consumers using credit cards, unless it discloses at the time the transaction is consummated that credit or cash refunds for returns are not given. This section does not require refunds for returns nor does it prohibit refunds in kind.\n\n( f ) Discounts ; tie-in arrangements. No card issuer may, by contract or otherwise : ( 1 ) Prohibit any person who honors a credit card from offering a discount to a consumer to induce the consumer to pay by cash, check, or similar means rather than by use of a credit card or its underlying account for the purchase of property or services; or ( 2 ) Require any person who honors the card issuer 's credit card to open or maintain any account or obtain any other service not essential to the operation of the credit card plan from the card issuer or any other person, as a condition of participation in a credit card plan. If maintenance of an account for clearing purposes is determined to be essential to the operation of the credit card plan, it may be required only if no service charges or minimum balance requirements are imposed.\n\n( g ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. For guidance on whether Regulation Z ( 12 CFR part 1026 ) or Regulation E ( 12 CFR part 1005 ) applies in instances involving both credit and electronic fund transfer aspects, refer to Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.12 ( a ) regarding issuance and liability for unauthorized use. On matters other than issuance and liability, this section applies to the credit aspects of combined credit/electronic fund transfer transactions, as applicable.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-03T04:38:27.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77084","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7339307","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-08-03T04:38:23.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["'s indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> occurred, <em>correct</em> the <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any <em>disputed</em> amount and related finance or other <em>charges</em>, as applicable"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[13.775988,"7339307"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7339334","_score":13.747882,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Capital One and XXXX continues to violate my consumer right by reporting my non public information without my written consent. \n\nCapital One stated in their terms and conditions that they would not share my information with anyone except the credit bureaus. The only true credit bureau is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and it does not furnish consumer reports. XXXX is a privately owned company that assumed the role to furnish consumer reports. \n\nIt is against federal law to report any financial history. My credit card information is considered financial history and should not be included in any reporting. \n\nPer the Privacy Act of 1974 as a federally protected consumer I have the right to opt out of my information being reported.\n\n1026.13 Billing error resolution. \n( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 1 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not made to the consumer or to a person who has actual, implied, or apparent authority to use the consumer 's credit card or open-end credit plan.\n\n( 2 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not identified in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( a ) ( 2 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ), as applicable, and 1026.8. \n\n( XXXX ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit for property or services not accepted by the consumer or the consumer 's designee, or not delivered to the consumer or the consumer 's designee as agreed. \n\n( XXXX ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account. \n\n( XXXX ) A reflection on a periodic statement of a computational or similar error of an accounting nature that is made by the creditor. \n\n( XXXX ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence. \n\n( XXXX ) The creditor 's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer 's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required. \n\n( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( XXXX ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( XXXX ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error. \n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures. \n\n( XXXX ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor XXXX not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor XXXX be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section. \n\n( XXXX ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer. \n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( XXXX ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( XXXX ) XXXX report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( XXXX ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( XXXX ) XXXX not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( XXXX ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report.\n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. A creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, and 1005.18 ( e ) as applicable, governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section if : ( 1 ) Except with respect to a prepaid account as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs under an agreement between the consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account ; or ( 2 ) With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature of a prepaid account where both are accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs when the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses both funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account and a credit extension from the credit feature with respect to a particular transaction.\n\n1026.12 Special credit card provisions. \n( a ) Issuance of credit cards. Regardless of the purpose for which a credit card is to be used, including business, commercial, or agricultural use, no credit card shall be issued to any person except : ( XXXX ) In response to an oral or written request or application for the card; or ( XXXX ) As a renewal of, or substitute for, an accepted credit card. \n\n( b ) Liability of cardholder for unauthorized use ( XXXX ) ( i ) Definition of unauthorized use. For purposes of this section, the term unauthorized use means the use of a credit card by a person, other than the cardholder, who does not have actual, implied, or apparent authority for such use, and from which the cardholder receives no benefit. \n\n( ii ) Limitation on amount. The liability of a cardholder for unauthorized use of a credit card shall not exceed the lesser of {$50.00} or the amount of money, property, labor, or services obtained by the unauthorized use before notification to the card issuer under paragraph ( b ) ( XXXX ) of this section. \n\n( XXXX ) Conditions of liability. A cardholder shall be liable for unauthorized use of a credit card only if : ( i ) The credit card is an accepted credit card ; ( ii ) The card issuer has provided adequate notice of the cardholder 's maximum potential liability and of means by which the card issuer XXXX be notified of loss or theft of the card. The notice shall state that the cardholder 's liability shall not exceed {$50.00} ( or any lesser amount ) and that the cardholder XXXX give oral or written notification, and shall describe a means of notification ( for example, a telephone number, an address, or both ) ; and ( iii ) The card issuer has provided a means to identify the cardholder on the account or the authorized user of the card. \n\n( XXXX ) Notification to card issuer. Notification to a card issuer is given when steps have been taken as XXXX be reasonably required in the ordinary course of business to provide the card issuer with the pertinent information about the loss, theft, or possible unauthorized use of a credit card, regardless of whether any particular XXXX, employee, or agent of the card issuer does, in fact, receive the information. Notification XXXX be given, at the option of the person giving it, in person, by telephone, or in writing. Notification in writing is considered given at the time of receipt or, whether or not received, at the expiration of the time ordinarily required for transmission, whichever is earlier. \n\n( XXXX ) Effect of other applicable law or agreement. If state law or an agreement between a cardholder and the card issuer imposes lesser liability than that provided in this paragraph, the lesser liability shall govern. \n\n( XXXX ) Business use of credit cards. If 10 or more credit cards are issued by one card issuer for use by the employees of an organization, this section does not prohibit the card issuer and the organization from agreeing to liability for unauthorized use without regard to this section. However, liability for unauthorized use XXXX be imposed on an employee of the organization, by either the card issuer or the organization, only in accordance with this section. \n\n( c ) Right of cardholder to assert claims or defenses against card issuer ( XXXX ) General rule. When a person who honors a credit card fails to resolve satisfactorily a dispute as to property or services purchased with the credit card in a consumer credit transaction, the cardholder XXXX assert against the card issuer all claims ( other than tort claims ) and defenses arising out of the transaction and relating to the failure to resolve the dispute. The cardholder XXXX withhold payment up to the amount of credit outstanding for the property or services that gave rise to the dispute and any finance or other charges imposed on that amount. \n\n( XXXX ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. If, in accordance with paragraph ( c ) ( XXXX ) of this section, the cardholder withholds payment of the amount of credit outstanding for the disputed transaction, the card issuer shall not report that amount as delinquent until the dispute is settled or judgment is rendered.\n\n( 3 ) Limitations ( i ) General. The rights stated in paragraphs ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section apply only if : ( A ) The cardholder has made a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the person honoring the credit card ; and ( B ) The amount of credit extended to obtain the property or services that result in the assertion of the claim or defense by the cardholder exceeds {$50.00}, and the disputed transaction occurred in the same state as the cardholder 's current designated address or, if not within the same state, within XXXX miles from that address. \n\n( ii ) Exclusion. The limitations stated in paragraph ( c ) ( 3 ) ( i ) ( B ) of this section shall not apply when the person honoring the credit card : ( A ) Is the same person as the card issuer ; ( B ) Is controlled by the card issuer directly or indirectly ; ( C ) Is under the direct or indirect control of a third person that also directly or indirectly controls the card issuer ; ( D ) Controls the card issuer directly or indirectly ; ( E ) Is a franchised dealer in the card issuer 's products or services ; or ( F ) Has obtained the order for the disputed transaction through a mail solicitation made or participated in by the card issuer. \n\n( d ) Offsets by card issuer prohibited ( XXXX ) General rule. A card issuer XXXX not take any action, either before or after termination of credit card privileges, to offset a cardholder 's indebtedness arising from a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer. \n\n( XXXX ) Rights of the card issuer. This paragraph ( d ) does not alter or affect the right of a card issuer acting under state or Federal law to do any of the following with regard to funds of a cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer if the same procedure is constitutionally available to creditors generally : Obtain or enforce a consensual security interest in the funds ; attach or otherwise levy upon the funds ; or obtain or enforce a court order relating to the funds. \n\n( XXXX ) Periodic deductions. \n\n( i ) This paragraph ( d ) does not prohibit a plan, if authorized in writing by the cardholder, under which the card issuer XXXX periodically deduct all or part of the cardholder 's credit card debt from a deposit account held with the card issuer ( subject to the limitations in 1026.13 ( d ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n( ii ) With respect to a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in 1026.61, for purposes of this paragraph ( d ) ( 3 ), periodically means no more frequently than once per calendar month, such as on a monthly due date disclosed on the applicable periodic statement in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( b ) ( 11 ) ( i ) ( A ) or on an earlier date in each calendar month in accordance with a written authorization signed by the consumer. \n\n( XXXX ) Prompt notification of returns and crediting of refunds. \n\n( XXXX ) When a creditor other than the card issuer accepts the return of property or forgives a debt for services that is to be reflected as a credit to the consumer 's credit card account, that creditor shall, within XXXX business days from accepting the return or forgiving the debt, transmit a credit statement to the card issuer through the card issuer 's normal channels for credit statements. \n\n( XXXX ) The card issuer shall, within XXXX business days from receipt of a credit statement, credit the consumer 's account with the amount of the refund. \n\n( XXXX ) If a creditor other than a card issuer routinely gives cash refunds to consumers paying in cash, the creditor shall also give credit or cash refunds to consumers using credit cards, unless it discloses at the time the transaction is consummated that credit or cash refunds for returns are not given. This section does not require refunds for returns nor does it prohibit refunds in kind. \n\n( f ) Discounts ; tie-in arrangements. No card issuer XXXX, by contract or otherwise : ( XXXX ) Prohibit any person who honors a credit card from offering a discount to a consumer to induce the consumer to pay by cash, check, or similar means rather than by use of a credit card or its underlying account for the purchase of property or services; or ( XXXX ) Require any person who honors the card issuer 's credit card to open or maintain any account or obtain any other service not essential to the operation of the credit card plan from the card issuer or any other person, as a condition of participation in a credit card plan. If maintenance of an account for clearing purposes is determined to be essential to the operation of the credit card plan, it XXXX be required only if no service charges or minimum balance requirements are imposed. \n\n( g ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. For guidance on whether Regulation Z ( 12 CFR part 1026 ) or Regulation E ( 12 CFR part 1005 ) applies in instances involving both credit and electronic fund transfer aspects, refer to Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.12 ( a ) regarding issuance and liability for unauthorized use. On matters other than issuance and liability, this section applies to the credit aspects of combined credit/electronic fund transfer transactions, as applicable.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-03T04:38:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77084","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7339334","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-08-03T04:13:35.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["'s indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> occurred, <em>correct</em> the <em>billing</em> <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any <em>disputed</em> amount and related finance or other <em>charges</em>, as applicable"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[13.747882,"7339334"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14479151","_score":10.152037,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a formal challenge to TransUnions ongoing failure to reinvestigate and correct the inaccurate reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. I am not disputing the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper Billing After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Evidence Refusal to Correct or Delete Unverifiable Data XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute Investigations Challenged : CFPB Complaint # XXXX Response dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Investigation Results dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Investigation Results XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Despite submitting extensive documentationincluding bank records, settlement communications, and contradictory letters from the furnishers themselvesTransUnion marked both accounts as verified as accurate on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and issued a vague investigation summary in the XX/XX/XXXX, response to CFPB Complaint # XXXX. This repeated pattern of superficial responses and refusal to correct known inaccuracies violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nSupporting evidence previously submitted in full. This complaint includes only updated investigation results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge apply to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by TransUnion to conduct a good faith and meaningful investigation in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards. \n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, timeline contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts. \n\n1. Unverifiable Ownership Supported by SEC Filings ( EX-10.2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  is not the legal owner of the debts associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts. As shown in the attached Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2, Section 2 ( a ) This agreement confirms : 100 % of credit card receivables are sold by the XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe sale is without recourse and structured as a true sale, not a secured loan. \nThe Bank retains only servicing duties, not ownership. \n\nAs a result, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  lacks legal standing to furnish tradeline data or pursue settlement collection after sale. Therefore, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX brands under this structureare not legally reporting with verified ownership authority. Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be corrected. This confirms XXXX, XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX had the authority to credit report or collect on the account and neither entity retains ownership. So what entity verified and or validated this account? \n\nXXXX. Illegally Billing After Account Closure Contradictory letters and billing statements reveal that both XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX continued to charge fees and send billing statements for 6 months after the accounts were officially closed. This is illegal and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX continued billing late fees through at least XX/XX/XXXX, disguised as settlement activity. \nTheir XX/XX/XXXX, letter explicitly admits : The fees continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly.This is legally questionable. Once the account is closed and restricted, the creditor can not bill additional monthly fees unless expressly permitted in a settlement contract, which they refused to provide as stated in all of their letters. \n\nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance stated as {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance increased to {$430.00} a {$41.00} increase in under XXXX weeks without explanation XX/XX/XXXX : I paid a total of {$400.00} Remaining amount due ( based on {$430.00} ) : {$34.00}, or at most {$75.00} if you consider the higher balance Despite this, I made additional payments : {$41.00} on XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Yet on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another email stating I owed {$100.00}, with {$73.00} due to bring the account current. If the account was closed in XXXX how would {$73.00} bring the account current. Internal billing errors do not excuse this abusive behavior. \nXX/XX/XXXX email : Claimed account was past due {$150.00} I paid {$120.00} over the {$75.00} potentially remainingyet continued receiving emails stating I was past due and being forced into an unverifiable settlement arrangement with no written terms, no proof of what the fees represented, and no disclosure of why my balance continued increasing. \n\nSummary : I made four post-closure payments, totaling {$520.00}, on an account they admitted was closed. The additional billing was illegal, lacked transparency, and held no contractual justification. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nYet XXXX XXXX also continued charging fees and requiring payments through XX/XX/XXXX, with the same vague language as XXXX XXXX. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, letter, they stated the account continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly after closuredespite no legal or contractual authority to do so. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance stated as {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance increased to {$450.00} XX/XX/XXXX : I paid {$400.00} Remaining amount should have been no more than {$54.00} {$50.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX made under pressure from phone agents claiming fees would continue even though the account was closed Yet : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance claimed was {$160.00}, with {$110.00} due XX/XX/XXXX email : Account reported as {$200.00} past due In total, I paid {$450.00} after closure on an account that shouldve only had a {$54.00} balance. There was no explanation for how balances increased to over {$200.00} after closure. I received monthly billing statements for 7 consecutive months with no activity, and again was never provided with written settlement terms despite multiple requests. \n\nAccording to federal billing standards and the Credit CARD Act, once a credit card account is closed and restricted : No further interest or fees should accrue unless transparently disclosed Creditors can not bill as if the account is still open without violating consumer rights Neither XXXX XXXX XXXXor XXXX XXXX  met these standards. They failed to explain what fees were being charged, how balances increased post-closure, or why settlement terms could not be documented. This pattern of ongoing billing on closed accounts, paired with refusal to provide settlement confirmation, constitutes illegal, unfair, and abusive practices under UDAAP, the FCRA, and the CARD Act. In additional all of this illegal creditor behavior on account they do not have ownership on, but Transunion verified and validated accounts as reporting accurately. All of this was documented in my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint. \n\nXXXX. Contradictory Statements by Furnishers The written responses provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  contain multiple contradictions, making it clear that the information reported to TransUnion was not only unverifiable but based on inconsistent and unreliable records. These contradictions reinforce the conclusion that TransUnion failed to properly investigate under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Payment Denial vs. ConfirmationIn the CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX claimed that only a {$55.00} payment had been received, and XXXX XXXX claimed only a {$54.00} payment had been received. However, in subsequent responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both furnishers confirmed that all payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX had been received and properly posted. These are the exact payments I referenced in my initial disputes, including the {$300.00} and {$100.00} payments made in XX/XX/XXXX, that they also stated to have never received. \n\nThis directly contradicts their earlier denial of those same payments and clearly demonstrates that their recordkeeping is flawed, and their credit reporting can not be relied upon. TransUnions decision to mark these tradelines as verified based on such conflicting information shows a failure to review or assess the accuracy of the evidence provided by the furnishers. \n\nXXXX. Post-Closure Billing In multiple lettersincluding the XX/XX/XXXX responsesboth furnishers acknowledge that the accounts were closed due to delinquency in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Despite this, both companies continued to bill fees and send monthly statements well into XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts their own closure dates and suggests that they improperly treated the accounts as active long after they were legally closed and restricted. The billing of late fees and continued monthly updates during this period is misleading, unlawful, and unsupported by any transparent contractual basis. \n\nXXXX. Settlement Completed After Closure In the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the creditor states that the settlement was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they had already confirmed that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This means they continued billing, collecting, and reporting the account for over seven months after it was no longer open. This timeline is inherently contradictoryan account can not simultaneously be closed and restricted and active and accruing fees toward a settlement. These contradictions show that no accurate or consistent account history exists. \n\nXXXX. Claims of Original Creditor StatusNeither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  clearly identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the original creditor in their CFPB responses. Instead, they repeatedly state that no third party is involved, which is false and misleading by omission. This omission is significant, because it misrepresents the true ownership structure of the accounts and conceals the securitization and sale of the receivables. \nSEC-filed documentationspecifically the Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) proves that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sells 100 % XXXX its receivables ( credit card debt ) to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX subsidiary XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, without recourse . The agreement states : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2 , Section 2 ( a ) This confirms that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not retain ownership of the accounts and has no legal standing to furnish derogatory tradelines or collect post-sale. Its role is limited to servicing. Therefore, by failing to acknowledge the role of XXXX or XXXX, and by denying any third-party involvement, the furnishers have provided materially false and misleading information. \n\nThis misrepresentation of ownership and reporting authority directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and undermines the legal basis for TransUnions verification of these tradelines. \n\nWhy These Contradictions Are Legally Significant and Undermine Verification Each of the contradictions outlined above represents a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies ' duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit information. According to FCRA 611 ( a ), TransUnion is legally obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed account. That includes evaluating whether the information furnished is consistent, supported by documentation, and based on accurate account records. None of those conditions were met here. \nThe payment denial vs. confirmation issue proves that furnishers initially misrepresented the facts of payment history. This means material account data was falseyet TransUnion still marked the information as verified, despite having my bank records and the creditors later confirmations that all payments were received. \nThe post-closure billing contradiction shows that both furnishers treated the accounts as active months after closure, billing fees and updating balances. This is not just misleadingit is illegal under federal law, including the Credit CARD Act, which restricts new charges or fees after closure unless properly disclosed and contractually agreed. TransUnion 's failure to question or investigate this ongoing billing activity on closed accounts shows gross negligence in their reinvestigation. \nThe settlement completion after account closure contradiction makes clear that the furnishers were applying settlement terms to accounts that were no longer legally collectible in the same way. The fact that balances were still increasing and being reported as past due months after closure, without written settlement documentation, renders the reporting inherently unverifiable. \nThe claim that no third party was involved, despite clear evidence from SEC documents that all receivables were sold to a third-party entity ( XXXX XXXX ), represents an intentional concealment of the actual creditor structure. This omission invalidates any claim that the furnishersor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ongoing legal authority to report or collect on the debt. The FCRA requires accurate reporting of both account status and ownership, and TransUnion had a duty to investigate the ownership when I provided this documentation. \nGiven these contradictions, TransUnion could not have reasonably verified the accuracy of these accounts without either ignoring or disregarding the conflicting evidence and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, TransUnion is in violation of FCRA 611, and the continued reporting of these tradelines is unlawful. These accounts must be corrected to reflect their true post-settlement statusor deleted entirely as unverifiable, misleading, and harmful to the consumer. \n\nTransUnion Continued Reporting After Account Closure Violates FCRA Accuracy Requirements Both the XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX accounts were formally closed in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. This is not speculativeit is clearly documented within TransUnions own credit report entries, which list the closure months explicitly. \nDespite this, TransUnion continued to allow furnishers to report balances, delinquencies, and settlement activity on these closed accounts well into XXXX, with past due statuses and payment updates reflected through XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nMost egregiously, TransUnion allowed : Past due balances to be reported in months when the accounts were already closed Monthly activity updates for accounts with no legitimate post-closure usage Settlement remarks and delinquency notations based on unverifiable, post-closure charges Ongoing tradeline updates without properly marking the accounts as Closed To date, TransUnion has still failed to notate either account as Closed, which creates the false impression that these are active or collectible debts. This is inaccurate and harmful, and it directly contradicts the closure information TransUnion already had on file. \nNothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not delinquency notations or continued balance updates. Once an account is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status. \n\nViolation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, TransUnion is legally obligated to : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. FCRA 607 ( b ) That obligation does not permit blind reliance on furnishers, especially when : The account is documented as closed No purchases or charges occurred post-closure No written settlement documentation exists The consumer has provided contradictory evidence showing overpayment and incorrect balances By continuing to report : Post-closure delinquency and balance activity Settled status based on no formal agreement Past due amounts for periods when accounts were not even legally billable TransUnion affirmatively misrepresented the nature, status, and accuracy of both accounts. \n\nCRA Liability Is Independent of the Furnisher Even if a furnisher continues sending data after closure, TransUnion is not absolved of its responsibility under the FCRA. Regulatory guidance and case law are clear : a credit reporting agency must : Independently assess whether the data is internally consistent, Confirm that it is factually supported, And determine whether it is legally reportable. \n\nIn this case, none of that occurred. TransUnion ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to continue publishing derogatory data on two accounts that should have been resolved or removed.\n\nTransUnions decision to continue reporting both accounts well into 2024, while knowing they were closed in 2023, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ). It contradicts their own records, fails to meet basic verification standards, and further confirms that the accounts are inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally reportable only if corrected or deleted entirely. \n\nTransUnions Settled for Less Than Full Balance Remark Is Misleading and Unsubstantiated TransUnion currently reports both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts with the derogatory remark : SETTLED LESS THAN FULL BALANCE. \nThis is factually inaccurate, legally unsupported, and damaging to my credit profile. The remark implies that I failed to fulfill my repayment obligations when I, in fact, overpaid both accounts based on the actual balances stated at the time of closurenot on the inflated post-closure fees later added by the furnishers. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Overpayment : {$140.00} These are overpayments when measured against the balances provided by the furnishers in their own emails at the time of closure. The only reason the balances later appeared to increase was because unauthorized fees and charges were added post-closure, which I repeatedly disputed as unlawful and unsupported. I did not agree to those fees, nor did I authorize continued billing after account closure. \nAll of this informationincluding my bank statements, creditor emails showing original balances, and objections to the additional feeswas submitted in my initial disputes and was available to TransUnion during their reinvestigation. \n\nTransUnions Verification Failure Despite receiving this supporting documentation, TransUnion : Failed to reconcile the true account balances with the payments made Did not obtain or request any written settlement agreement to justify the settled for less remark Ignored clear evidence that I paid more than what was owed at closure This remark was accepted from the furnisher without verification, despite the fact that the furnishers themselves admitted in their XX/XX/XXXX letters that no settlement letter could be located. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX letter, they stated : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XXXX. \nSo how was TransUnion able to verify a settlement occurred, let alone claim it was settled for less, if the creditor couldnt even produce documentation to support it? \nViolation of FCRA and Metro 2 Guidelines Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 industry standards, TransUnion is not permitted to : Rely solely on furnisher data that is contradicted by consumer evidence Report settled for less status without written, verifiable settlement terms Ignore overpayment evidence and knowingly furnish inaccurate derogatory remarks This conduct violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) failure to ensure accuracy FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate properly Metro 2 guidelines prohibition on reporting settlement status without documentation 4. Failure to Provide Settlement Letter Despite confirming that I was enrolled in a settlement arrangement, neither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXr provided a written agreement outlining the settlement terms, payment schedule, or total payoff amount. Instead, they both stated that a settlement letter would only be issued after all payments had been madeleaving me with no written confirmation during the active settlement period. \n\nThis was not a one-time miscommunication. I received multiple settlement offer emails over several months, and I accepted the initial offer because the furnishers kept billing fees on a closed account and refused to stop unless a settlement was reached. However, even after I accepted that first settlement offer, I continued receiving new settlement emails each monthwith different amounts and terms. \n\nWhen I contacted their customer service to ask why settlement offers continued arriving after I had already accepted one, I was told they had no record of ever sending a settlement offer at all. This was deeply concerning. Their denial of the very email offers I received ( and accepted ) led me to request formal documentation proving I was enrolled in a settlementbut they repeatedly refused to provide it, as clearly shown in their CFPB response letters. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The agent informed you a letter would be sent upon completion of the last settlement payment and to call to confirm it was completed. \nThis left me without any settlement letter during the full payment periodmeaning I had no protection if the terms changed or if they later misapplied payments. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Only XXXX payment of {$54.00} has been received for the settlement... In the absence of any evidence of error in our reporting of the account, we are unable to fulfill the request to remove the account from the credit bureau reports. \nThis statement dismisses the multiple payments I made and my proof of those paymentsand relies on the existence of a settlement they simultaneously deny ever offering or documenting. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : We did not locate a copy of a letter confirming the settlement offer you referenced. \nThis contradicts their earlier acknowledgment that I was in a settlement and further demonstrates their internal records are incomplete, inconsistent, or deliberately withheld. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, you agreed to pay the account for less than the balance and agreed to the amount of {$100.00} ... On XX/XX/XXXX, the settlement was completed, and the remaining balance was written off. \nDespite this acknowledgment of a settlement arrangement and completion, no letter was ever issued confirming the agreed terms, and my repeated requests were either ignored or dismissed. I completed all settlement payments by XX/XX/XXXX, and still received no documentation to reflect this. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is particularly alarming because my payments were made based on that exact offer. Their denial of the agreements existence after accepting the payments reveals a serious procedural flaw or intentional deception. \n\nWhy This Is Deceptive and Legally Problematic The repeated refusal to provide written confirmation of a settlementwhile continuing to bill on a closed account, furnish negative credit data, and send conflicting settlement offersdemonstrates a pattern of deceptive and abusive conduct. \nThis prevented me from : Validating the terms of my agreement Disputing errors with supporting documentation Confirming completion of my obligations Protecting myself from ongoing derogatory credit reporting This conduct violates FCRA, FDCPA, and UDAAP standards by denying me the transparency and documentation I needed to resolve the account. Worse, TransUnion relied on the furnishers undocumented claims to continue verifying negative tradeline data. \nA valid settlement agreement must be documented. If the furnishers can not or will not produce such documentation, the credit reporting must be considered unverifiable and deleted. \n\n\n5. TransUnions Violations of FCRA TransUnion failed to meet its duty under FCRA 611 to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Provide a description of the process Verify the data using competent evidence Delete unverifiable information if the furnisher can not confirm ownership and accuracy Instead, TransUnion relied on data furnishers who issued inconsistent, incomplete, and contradictory responses. \n\nAdditional Section : Why TransUnion 's Verification Was Inadequate and Legally Deficient Despite my submission of clear, documented contradictions and errors, TransUnion closed my disputes dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX with claims that no changes were needed or that the items had been verified. This position is not only unsupported by the evidenceit also violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) and industry standards under Metro 2 guidelines, which require credit reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they report. \n\nTransUnions Reporting Confirms the Problem According to the investigation summaries provided by TransUnion : For XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion shows : Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX Last payment received : XX/XX/XXXX Reporting status : Paid, closed ; was 6090 days past due Delinquency listed : 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX Remark : \" Settled for less than full balance '' For XXXX XXXX TransUnion shows : Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX Last payment received : XX/XX/XXXX Reporting status : Paid, closed ; was paid as agreed Delinquency listed : 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX Remark : \" Settled for less than full balance '' These summaries confirm that TransUnion knowingly accepted and reported post-closure payment activity as settlement payments without requiring proper validation or documentation of the settlement agreements. This is not just carelessit contradicts the FCRAs requirement that data must be verifiable and accurate. \nThe Legal Issues : 1. No Settlement Letter ExistsBoth furnishers refused to provide documentation proving I was under an official settlement arrangement. Without such documentation, TransUnion had no legal or factual basis to verify settled for less status or any associated payment updates. Per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.\n\n2. Account Status vs. Payment Dates ConflictBoth accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet TransUnion shows last payments received in XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that TransUnion accepted ongoing reporting activity on closed accounts, which is a major compliance issue. No explanation was provided as to how payments made 67 months post-closure could lawfully update a closed tradelineespecially without proof of a settlement contract. \nXXXX. Furnisher Contradictions Were IgnoredThe same furnishers that TransUnion relied on to verify these accounts issued multiple CFPB responses that contradict themselves on key points, including : Payment amounts and dates Whether a settlement was ever offered Whether third parties were involved Whether accounts were still being billed post-closure XXXX. TransUnion ignored these contradictions entirely and provided no statement of how they resolved these conflicts before declaring the tradelines verified. \nXXXX. TransUnions Dispute Results Do Not Satisfy FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) I was never provided with : A description of how the reinvestigation was conducted The name, address, and documentation relied on from the furnisher Any explanation of how contradictory or missing information was reconciled Legal Grounds for Immediate Removal Based on the documented record of contradictions, misrepresentations, and TransUnions failure to lawfully reinvestigate or validate the disputed information, the continued reporting of these XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX tradelines is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since XXXX, I have consistently provided accurate and detailed documentationincluding payment confirmations, closure notices, and regulatory filingsthat directly refute the furnishers claims. \n\nDespite this, TransUnion has willfully ignored the facts and maintained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete tradelines, acting in partnership with the furnishers to suppress necessary corrections that would reflect my true credit history. This conduct violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) for failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified, FCRA 607 ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports, And violates the principles of Metro 2 compliance and the CFPBs guidance on dispute resolution and data accuracy obligations. \n\nGiven the overwhelming evidence that : The furnishers statements are internally inconsistent, The accounts were closed months prior to the reported payment activity, And payments were initially denied, then later acknowledged by the furnishers TransUnion had no legal or factual basis to validate or continue reporting these accounts as accurate or verifiable. \n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of both tradelines from my TransUnion credit file and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hold TransUnion accountable for its failure to protect consumers from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting in violation of federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-06T20:58:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14479151","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T20:24:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am not <em>disputing</em> the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper <em>Billing</em> After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Evidence Refusal to <em>Correct</em> or Delete Unverifiable Data XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>Dispute</em> <em>Investigations</em> Challenged : CFPB Complaint # XXXX Response dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion <em>Investigation</em> Results"],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[10.152037,"14479151"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14476796","_score":9.850648,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a formal challenge to Equifaxs ongoing failure to reasonably reinvestigate and correct the inaccurate reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. I am not disputing the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper Billing After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Competent Evidence Refusal to Correct or Delete Unverifiable Data Supporting evidence previously submitted in full. This complaint includes only updated investigation results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge apply to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by Equifax to conduct a good faith and meaningful investigation in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards.\n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, timeline contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts.\n\n1. Unverifiable Ownership Supported by SEC Filings ( EX-10.2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not the legal owner of the debts associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. As shown in the attached Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2, Section 2 ( a ) This agreement confirms : 100 % of credit card receivables are sold by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe sale is without recourse and structured as a true sale, not a secured loan. \nThe Bank retains only servicing duties, not ownership. \nAs a result, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lack legal standing to furnish tradeline data or pursue settlement collection after sale. Therefore, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as brands under this structure are not legally reporting with verified ownership authority. Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be corrected. \n\nXXXX. Illegally Billing After Account Closure Contradictory letters and billing statements reveal that both XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to charge fees and send billing statements for months after the accounts were officially closed. This is deceptive and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX continued billing late fees through at least XX/XX/XXXX, disguised as settlement activity. \nTheir XX/XX/XXXX, letter explicitly admits : The fees continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly.This is legally questionable. Once the account is closed and restricted, the creditor should not be billing additional monthly fees unless expressly permitted in a settlement contractwhich they refused to provide. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance stated as {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance increased to {$430.00} a {$41.00} increase in under 3 weeks without explanation XX/XX/XXXX : I paid a total of {$400.00} Remaining amount due ( based on {$430.00} ) : {$34.00}, or at most {$75.00} if you consider the higher balance Despite this, I made additional payments : {$41.00} on XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Yet on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another email stating I owed {$100.00}, with {$73.00} due to bring the account current XX/XX/XXXX email : Claimed account was past due {$150.00} XXXX paid {$120.00} over the {$75.00} potentially remainingyet continued receiving emails stating I was past due and being forced into an unverifiable settlement arrangement with no written terms, no proof of what the fees represented, and no disclosure of why my balance continued increasing. \nSummary : I made four post-closure payments, totaling {$520.00}, on an account they admitted was closed. The additional billing was deceptive, lacked transparency, and had no legal or contractual justification. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nYet XXXX XXXX also continued charging fees and requiring payments through XX/XX/XXXX, with the same vague language as XXXX XXXX. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, letter, they stated the account continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly after closuredespite no legal or contractual authority to do so. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance stated as {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance increased to {$450.00} XX/XX/XXXX : I paid {$400.00} Remaining amount should have been no more than {$54.00} {$50.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX made under pressure from phone agents claiming fees would continue even though the account was closed Yet : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance claimed was {$160.00}, with {$110.00} due XX/XX/XXXX email : Account reported as {$200.00} past due In total, I paid {$450.00} after closure on an account that XXXX only had a {$54.00} balance. There was no explanation for how balances increased to over {$200.00} after closure. I received monthly billing statements for 7 consecutive months with no activity, and againwas never provided with written settlement terms despite multiple requests. \n\nLegal Concern According to federal billing standards and the Credit CARD Act, once a credit card account is closed and restricted : No further interest or fees should accrue unless transparently disclosed Creditors can not bill as if the account is still open without violating consumer rights Neither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX met these standards. They failed to explain what fees were being charged, how balances increased post-closure, or why settlement terms could not be documented. This pattern of ongoing billing on closed accounts, paired with refusal to provide settlement confirmation, constitutes deceptive, unfair, and abusive practices under UDAAP, the FCRA, and the CARD Act. \n\n3. Contradictory Statements by Furnishers The written responses provided by Total Visa and First Access Visa contain multiple contradictions, making it clear that the information reported to Equifax was not only unverifiable but based on inconsistent and unreliable records. These contradictions reinforce the conclusion that Equifax failed to properly investigate under the FCRA.\n\n1. Payment Denial vs. ConfirmationIn the CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX claimed that only a {$55.00} payment had been received, and XXXX XXXX  claimed only a {$54.00} payment had been received. However, in subsequent responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both furnishers confirmed that all payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX had been received and properly posted. These are the exact payments I referenced in my initial disputes, including the {$300.00} and {$100.00} payments made in XX/XX/XXXX, that they also stated to have never received. \n\nThis directly contradicts their earlier denial of those same payments and clearly demonstrates that their recordkeeping is flawed, and their credit reporting can not be relied upon. Equifaxs decision to mark these tradelines as verified based on such conflicting information shows a failure to review or assess the accuracy of the evidence provided by the furnishers. \n\n2. Post-Closure Billing In multiple lettersincluding the XX/XX/XXXX responsesboth furnishers acknowledge that the accounts were closed due to delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). Despite this, both companies continued to bill fees and send monthly statements well into XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts their own closure dates and suggests that they improperly treated the accounts as active long after they were legally closed and restricted. The billing of late fees and continued monthly updates during this period is misleading, unlawful, and unsupported by any transparent contractual basis. \n\n3. Settlement Completed After Closure In the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the creditor states that the settlement was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they had already confirmed that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This means they continued billing, collecting, and reporting the account for over seven months after it was no longer open. This timeline is inherently contradictoryan account can not simultaneously be closed and restricted and active and accruing fees toward a settlement. These contradictions show that no accurate or consistent account history exists.\n\n4. Claims of Original Creditor StatusNeither First Access nor XXXX XXXX clearly identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the original creditor in their CFPB responses. Instead, they repeatedly state that no third party is involved, which is false and misleading by omission. This omission is significant, because it misrepresents the true ownership structure of the accounts and conceals the securitization and sale of the receivables. \nSEC-filed documentationspecifically the Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) proves that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  sells 100 % of its receivables ( credit card debt ) to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX, without recourse . The agreement states : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2 , Section 2 ( a ) This confirms that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not retain ownership of the accounts and has no legal standing to furnish derogatory tradelines or collect post-sale. Its role is limited to servicing. Therefore, by failing to acknowledge the role of XXXX or XXXX, and by denying any third-party involvement, the furnishers have provided materially false and misleading information. \nThis misrepresentation of ownership and reporting authority directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and undermines the legal basis for Equifaxs verification of these tradelines. \n\nWhy These Contradictions Are Legally Significant and Undermine Verification Each of the contradictions outlined above represents a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies ' duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit information. According to FCRA 611 ( a ), Equifax is legally obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed account. That includes evaluating whether the information furnished is consistent, supported by documentation, and based on accurate account records. None of those conditions were met here. \nThe payment denial vs. confirmation issue proves that furnishers initially misrepresented the facts of payment history. This means material account data was falseyet Equifax still marked the information as verified, despite having my bank records and the creditors later confirmations that all payments were received. \nThe post-closure billing contradiction shows that both furnishers treated the accounts as active months after closure, billing fees and updating balances. This is not just misleadingit is illegal under federal law, including the Credit CARD Act, which restricts new charges or fees after closure unless properly disclosed and contractually agreed. Equifax 's failure to question or investigate this ongoing billing activity on closed accounts shows gross negligence in their reinvestigation. \nThe settlement completion after account closure contradiction makes clear that the furnishers were applying settlement terms to accounts that were no longer legally collectible in the same way. The fact that balances were still increasing and being reported as past due months after closure, without written settlement documentation, renders the reporting inherently unverifiable. \nThe claim that no third party was involved, despite clear evidence from SEC documents that all receivables were sold to a third-party entity ( XXXX XXXX ), represents an intentional concealment of the actual creditor structure. This omission invalidates any claim that the furnishersor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ongoing legal authority to report or collect on the debt. The FCRA requires accurate reporting of both account status and ownership, and Equifax had a duty to investigate the ownership when I provided this documentation. \nGiven these contradictions, Equifax could not have reasonably verified the accuracy of these accounts without either ignoring or disregarding the conflicting evidence and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, Equifax is in violation of FCRA 611, and the continued reporting of these tradelines is unlawful. These accounts must be corrected to reflect their true post-settlement statusor deleted entirely as unverifiable, misleading, and harmful to the consumer. \n\n\nEquifax Continued Reporting After Account Closure Violates FCRA Accuracy Requirements Both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts were formally closed in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. This is not speculativeit is clearly documented within Equifaxs own credit report entries, which list the closure months explicitly. \nDespite this, Equifax continued to allow furnishers to report balances, delinquencies, and settlement activity on these closed accounts well into XXXX, with past due statuses and payment updates reflected through XX/XX/XXXX. \nMost egregiously, Equifax allowed : Past due balances to be reported in months when the accounts were already closed Monthly activity updates for accounts with no legitimate post-closure usage Settlement remarks and delinquency notations based on unverifiable, post-closure charges Ongoing tradeline updates without properly marking the accounts as Closed To date, Equifax has still failed to notate either account as Closed, which creates the false impression that these are active or collectible debts. This is inaccurate and harmful, and it directly contradicts the closure information Equifax already had on file. \nNothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not delinquency notations or continued balance updates. Once an account is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status. \nViolation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Equifax is legally obligated to : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.FCRA 607 ( b ) That obligation does not permit blind reliance on furnishers, especially when : The account is documented as closed No purchases or charges occurred post-closure No written settlement documentation exists The consumer has provided contradictory evidence showing overpayment and incorrect balances By continuing to report : Post-closure delinquency and balance activity Settled status based on no formal agreement Past due amounts for periods when accounts were not even legally billable Equifax affirmatively misrepresented the nature, status, and accuracy of both accounts. \nCRA Liability Is Independent of the Furnisher Even if a furnisher continues sending data after closure, Equifax is not absolved of its responsibility under the FCRA. Regulatory guidance and case law are clear : a credit reporting agency must : Independently assess whether the data is internally consistent, Confirm that it is factually supported, And determine whether it is legally reportable. \nIn this case, none of that occurred. Equifax ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to continue publishing derogatory data on two accounts that should have been resolved or removed. \nConclusion Equifaxs decision to continue reporting both accounts well into XXXX, while knowing they were closed in XXXX, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ). It contradicts their own records, fails to meet basic verification standards, and further confirms that the accounts are inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally reportable only if corrected or deleted entirely. \n\n\nEquifaxs Verification Failure Despite receiving this supporting documentation, Equifax : Failed to reconcile the true account balances with the payments made Did not obtain or request any written settlement agreement to justify the settled for less remark Ignored clear evidence that I paid more than what was owed at closure This remark was accepted from the furnisher without verification, despite the fact that the furnishers themselves admitted in their XX/XX/XXXX letters that no settlement letter could be located. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX letter, they stated : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XXXX. \nSo how was Equifax able to verify a settlement occurred, let alone claim it was settled for less, if the creditor couldnt even produce documentation to support it? \nViolation of FCRA and Metro 2 Guidelines Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 industry standards, Equifax is not permitted to : Rely solely on furnisher data that is contradicted by consumer evidence Report settled for less status without written, verifiable settlement terms Ignore overpayment evidence and knowingly furnish inaccurate derogatory remarks This conduct violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) failure to ensure accuracy FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate properly Metro 2 guidelines prohibition on reporting settlement status without documentation 4. Failure to Provide Settlement Letter Despite confirming that I was enrolled in a settlement arrangement, neither Total Visa nor First Access Visa ever provided a written agreement outlining the settlement terms, payment schedule, or total payoff amount. Instead, they both stated that a settlement letter would only be issued after all payments had been madeleaving me with no written confirmation during the active settlement period. \n\nThis was not a one-time miscommunication. I received multiple settlement offer emails over several months, and I accepted the initial offer because the furnishers kept billing fees on a closed account and refused to stop unless a settlement was reached. However, even after I accepted that first settlement offer, I continued receiving new settlement emails each month with different amounts and terms. \n\nWhen I contacted their customer service to ask why settlement offers continued arriving after I had already accepted one, I was told they had no record of ever sending a settlement offer at all. This was deeply concerning. Their denial of the very email offers I received ( and accepted ) led me to request formal documentation proving I was enrolled in a settlement but they repeatedly refused to provide it, as clearly shown in their CFPB response letters. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The agent informed you a letter would be sent upon completion of the last settlement payment and to call to confirm it was completed. \nThis left me without any settlement letter during the full payment period meaning I had no protection if the terms changed or if they later misapplied payments. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Only one payment of {$54.00} has been received for the settlement... In the absence of any evidence of error in our reporting of the account, we are unable to fulfill the request to remove the account from the credit bureau reports. \nThis statement dismisses the multiple payments I made and my proof of those payments and relies on the existence of a settlement they simultaneously deny ever offering or documenting. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : We did not locate a copy of a letter confirming the settlement offer you referenced. \nThis contradicts their earlier acknowledgment that I was in a settlement and further demonstrates their internal records are incomplete, inconsistent, or deliberately withheld. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, you agreed to pay the account for less than the balance and agreed to the amount of {$100.00} ... On XX/XX/XXXX, the settlement was completed, and the remaining balance was written off. \nDespite this acknowledgment of a settlement arrangement and completion, no letter was ever issued confirming the agreed terms, and my repeated requests were either ignored or dismissed. I completed all settlement payments by XX/XX/XXXX, and still received no documentation to reflect this. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is particularly alarming because my payments were made based on that exact offer. Their denial of the agreements existence after accepting the payments reveals a serious procedural flaw or intentional deception. \n\nWhy This Is Deceptive and Legally Problematic The repeated refusal to provide written confirmation of a settlementwhile continuing to bill on a closed account, furnish negative credit data, and send conflicting settlement offersdemonstrates a pattern of deceptive and abusive conduct. \nThis prevented me from : Validating the terms of my agreement Disputing errors with supporting documentation Confirming completion of my obligations Protecting myself from ongoing derogatory credit reporting This conduct violates FCRA, FDCPA, and UDAAP standards by denying me the transparency and documentation I needed to resolve the account. Worse, Equifax relied on the furnishers undocumented claims to continue verifying negative tradeline data. \nA valid settlement agreement must be documented. If the furnishers can not or will not produce such documentation, the credit reporting must be considered unverifiable and deleted. \n\n5. Equifaxs Violations of FCRA Equifax failed to meet its duty under FCRA 611 to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Provide a description of the process Verify the data using competent evidence Delete unverifiable information if the furnisher can not confirm ownership and accuracy Instead, Equifax relied on data furnishers who issued inconsistent, incomplete, and contradictory responses. \n\nWhy Equifax 's Verification Was Inadequate and Legally Deficient Despite my submission of clear, documented contradictions and errors, Equifax closed my disputes with claims that no changes were needed or that the items had been verified. This position is not only unsupported by the evidenceit also violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) and industry standards under Metro 2 guidelines, which require credit reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they report. \nKey Errors in XXXX Verification : 1. {$400.00} XX/XX/XXXX Payment Not Reflected on Either Account I made {$400.00} in total payments across these two accounts in XX/XX/XXXX. \nThese payments are missing from both tradelines in Equifaxs updated investigation results. \nThe account histories fail to reflect these payments, and there is no update showing a balance reduction, paid status, or accurate application of payments in XXXX. \n\nIf Equifax had truly verified this information with the original furnisher, these XX/XX/XXXX payments would have been included in the payment history. \n\n2. Continued Reporting of Scheduled Payments and Past Due Balances AFTER Account Closure The XXXX XXXX  account was closed in XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX was closed in XX/XX/XXXX. \nYet Equifax continues to report scheduled payments, due dates, and past due balances well into XXXX for both accounts. \nFor example, both reports show activity dated through XX/XX/XXXX, which is 78 months after the official account closure. \n\nAccording to Metro 2 reporting standards and FCRA 607 ( b ), no payment activity should appear after the closure date, and no pay status should be reported as Pay As Agreed on a closed account. \n\nXXXX. Equifax Contradicts Its Own Data Equifaxs investigation results confirm the accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet the updated reports include : Scheduled Payment Amounts of {$41.00} each Next Payment Due Dates of XX/XX/XXXX Pay Status as Pay As Agreed instead of Paid/Closed or Closed/Paid Settled This is internally contradictory : Equifax acknowledges the closure date, but still reports the accounts as active and delinquent into XXXX. \n\n4. No Explanation or Verification Details Provided Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ), Equifax is required to provide : A description of the reinvestigation process ; The name and contact details of the furnisher ; And the documentation used to verify the disputed information. \n\nEquifaxs response included none of this information and simply stated the item was updated without showing any substantive correction or reconciliation with the actual payment history I provided. \n\nThese summaries confirm that Equifax knowingly accepted and reported post-closure payment activity as settlement payments without requiring proper validation or documentation of the settlement agreements. This is not just carelessit contradicts the FCRAs requirement that data must be verifiable and accurate. \nThe Legal Issues : 1. No Settlement Letter ExistsBoth furnishers refused to provide documentation proving I was under an official settlement arrangement. Without such documentation, Equifax had no legal or factual basis to verify settled for less status or any associated payment updates. Per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.\n\n2. Account Status vs. Payment Dates ConflictBoth accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet Equifax shows last payments received in XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that Equifax accepted ongoing reporting activity on closed accounts, which is a major compliance issue. No explanation was provided as to how payments made 67 months post-closure could lawfully update a closed tradelineespecially without proof of a settlement contract. \n3. Furnisher Contradictions Were IgnoredThe same furnishers that Equifax relied on to verify these accounts issued multiple CFPB responses that contradict themselves on key points, including : Payment amounts and dates Whether a settlement was ever offered Whether third parties were involved Whether accounts were still being billed post-closure 4. Equifax ignored these contradictions entirely and provided no statement of how they resolved these conflicts before declaring the tradelines verified. \n5. Equifaxs Dispute Results Do Not Satisfy FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) I was never provided with : A description of how the reinvestigation was conducted The name, address, and documentation relied on from the furnisher Any explanation of how contradictory or missing information was reconciled Legal Grounds for Immediate Removal Based on the documented record of contradictions, misrepresentations, and Equifaxs failure to lawfully reinvestigate or validate the disputed information, the continued reporting of these XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX tradelines is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since XXXX, I have consistently provided accurate and detailed documentationincluding payment confirmations, closure notices, and regulatory filingsthat directly refute the furnishers claims. \n\nDespite this, Equifax has willfully ignored the facts and maintained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete tradelines, acting in partnership with the furnishers to suppress necessary corrections that would reflect my true credit history. This conduct violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) for failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified, FCRA 607 ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports, And violates the principles of Metro 2 compliance and the CFPBs guidance on dispute resolution and data accuracy obligations. \n\nGiven the overwhelming evidence that : The furnishers statements are internally inconsistent, The accounts were closed months prior to the reported payment activity, And payments were initially denied, then later acknowledged by the furnisher. \n\nEquifax had no legal or factual basis to validate or continue reporting these accounts as accurate or verifiable. \n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of both tradelines from my Equifax credit file and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hold Equifax accountable for its failure to protect consumers from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting in violation of federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-06T22:33:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14476796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T22:20:30.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be <em>corrected</em>. \n\nXXXX. Illegally <em>Billing</em> After Account Closure Contradictory letters and <em>billing</em> statements reveal that both XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to <em>charge</em> fees and send <em>billing</em> statements for months after the accounts were officially closed. This is deceptive and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[9.850648,"14476796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9263471","_score":7.265379,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Re : Account for XXXX I. NOTICE OF VALIDATION REQUEST This letter serves as formal notification, in accordance with 15 U.S. Code 1692, that the debt referenced by the aforementioned file number is contested and disputed, either partially or entirely. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), all collection efforts regarding this account are to be suspended until the matter is settled. I declare that the account ( s ) in question hold inaccurate or fraudulent information. I did not authorize, nor did anyone under my authority, the disputed transactions. \nAny further attempts at solicitation of this kind will be reported to the U.S. Postmaster for potential mail fraud, as it involves the use of U.S. Mail to promote a contract that may be fraudulent or misleading.\n\nUnder 15 U.S. Code 1681i and 1692e ( 8 ), you are required to promptly notify all credit reporting agencies ( CRA ) or Credit Bureaus ( CB ) about the dispute. It is your responsibility to direct them to delete any negative information pertaining to the accounts in question. Additionally, failure to verify with the credit bureaus as of the current date, or inaction regarding these demands, constitutes a breach of the FCRA and FDCPA, which may incur the associated fines and penalties.\n\nVerification and validation are demanded and required. Verification and validation are distinct terms and concepts, as highlighted by their definitions : Verification involves confirming the accuracy of a claim, such as the existence of a debt, while validation is the process of ensuring that a product or service meets the requirements and expectations for which it was intended. Both play crucial roles in different contexts, ensuring reliability and compliance with standards. \nSee Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 ( 4th Cir. 1999 ). The definition of verification according to XXXX 's XXXX XXXX is... averment that the party pleading is ready to establish the truth of what he has set forth. ... The examination of a writing for the purpose of ascertaining its truth ; or a certificate or affidavit that it is true.. The court said Confirmation of the correctness, truth, or authenticity of a pleading, account, or other paper, by an affidavit, oath, or deposition. McDonald v. Rosengarten, 134 Ill. 126, 25 N.E. ( 1890 ) ; and Summerfield v. Phoenix Assur. Co. ( C. C. ) 65 Fed. 296 ( 1922 ) ; and Patterson v. Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, 40 N.Y. Supp. 581 ( 1898 ). \nValidation is for disputing a debt, stopping account and credit reporting activities until the debt has been confirmed, see Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E. 2d 862 Ind. App. ( 2001 ). As defined in XXXX 's XXXX XXXX, assessing an action to determine it is complete, correct, implemented and delivering the correct outcome. ; XXXX states it as to check or prove the validity or accuracy of something ; XXXX says , to show the existence or truth of, by evidence. \nII. VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS The demands are, but not be limited to : 1 ) I am exercising my rights under the Truth in Lending Act, specifically 15 U.S. Code 1601-1667f, to request a clear disclosure of the identity of the original creditor involved in this transaction. It is my legal right to have transparent information about the principal party of interest. \n2 ) I need an original contract to be produced, bearing the wet-ink signatures of all involved parties. Prior to the trial, a notarized copy may be submitted, but the original document is required during the trial. No substitutes, such as an affidavit of loss, will be considered valid. Should the original contract be stored at a different location, please provide the address and the available times for in-person viewing. As a maxim of contract law : The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are : mutual assent ( agreement by both parties to a contract ), expressed by a valid offer and acceptance ; adequate consideration ; capacity ; and legality.\n\n3 ) Please provide a detailed explanation of the nature of the claimed debt, including the specific services or money transactions that resulted in the alleged amount owed. Additionally, furnish a comprehensive breakdown of how the total sum was determined, accompanied by any pertinent documentation that substantiates the claimed obligation under 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( a ) and 1692g ( b ). It is also asserted that there is a considerable unresolved BILLING DISCREPANCY or ERROR concerning the original debt.\n\n4 ) Production of account and general ledger statement ( s ) showing the full accounting of alleged obligation. This includes evidence of contracts, billing statements, PLUS any securities generated behind the scenes, tax benefits taken, charge offs ( which are income ), and discounts in selling the alleged debt. This is required by all parties ; debt collectors and principals. This evidence is due is required to be admissible as evidence ( sufficiency of pleadings by a fact-witness ), along with a signed affidavit by the person responsible for maintaining these public and private accounting records, by the person having first-hand knowledge as to its accuracy and authenticity, who are able to testify under oath as required. Mere account statements of account are insufficient evidence.\n\n5 ) Deliver proof your organization is a contract party to the original transaction. You seem to think there is a right to collect when your organization never loaned money to me. I have never signed any contract with you. You may have bought a note, but it was not signed by all parties. American Jurisprudence 2d 73 states that The right of subrogation does not exist for a stranger to the transaction. Subrogation means to substitute and stranger to the transaction means a party that is not on the original contract. So, the right to substitute a third-party collector [ you ] into a contract, does not exist. The third-party has no rights if they did not give consideration in the original contract and were not mentioned on the contract or were any part of the contract; including loans transferred, assigned, sold, or changed hands in one manner or another. To bring such a claim will immediately be identified as fraud upon the court. You have been noticed.\n\n6 ) Proof that the alleged account is not out of the states statute of limitations, if proven valid at all.\n\n7 ) A copy of your license number and registered agent information allowing you to operate as an agency in this state - [ except if in AL, CA, DC, DE, GA, KS, KY, MO, MS , MT, NH, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA or VT ].\n\n8 ) Stipulate for the record whether or not the alleged loan has been securitized, and if so, the name and all other information of the financial instrument the alleged loan is bundled with, including profits generated or tax benefits taken.\n\n9 ) Where did the money or credit supposedly loaned or issued to me come from? Or if form a service, a loan or properly executed service contract is still missing.\n\nIII. OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A response to each point outlined in the affidavit is mandated by law. The legal principles, \" Silence is admission, '' and \" An affidavit without rebuttal stands as truth, '' apply here. According to Restatement 2nd 69, not responding within thirty days is deemed an acknowledgment of the debt 's invalidity, a relinquishment of all associated legal claims, and an indication that the account holder may have been subjected to identity theft. Consequently, there is a call to close the claim and amend any adverse credit reports related to the purported debt with all credit reporting agencies and bureaus, pending verification. \nUpon receiving this letter, you are allotted a thirty-day period to either : 1 ) submit a detailed response to the provided affidavit, through a sworn affidavit of your own, accepting full commercial responsibility and attesting under oath to the veracity and completeness of your statements. Simple declarations will not be deemed adequate. Should you require additional time to furnish a comprehensive reply, please formally request an extension in writing. Alternatively, 2 ) provide a written confirmation within the same thirty-day timeframe, acknowledging the full settlement of the purported debt, and specifying the timeline for the removal of the item from all credit, banking, internal, and public records where it appears. Upon receipt of such confirmation, no further measures will be necessary, and your obligations concerning this issue will be considered fulfilled. A failure to address this matter will be regarded as a default in commercial terms and will imply your agreement with the affidavit 's assertions.\n\nIV. FUTURE COMMUNICATION ( S ) According to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 805 ( c ), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 1692c, excluding the waiver of Section 1692c ( c ), any further communication about this purported debt following the receipt of this notice, without delivering appropriate procedural validation, constitutes a violation. A \" refusal for cause '' will apply to any unsigned correspondence or any communication that fails to identify the individual sender from your organization. Written communications are permitted solely for conveying settlement proposals or providing debt validation.\n\nV. NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Should there be no comprehensive validation of the purported debt, it is hereby recorded that the aforementioned entity has sustained \" harm and injury '' equivalent to the value of the unverified debt, accruing at an interest rate of 20 %. This constitutes a formal notification and a demand for the settlement of any unvalidated debt, which includes a minimum fine of {$1000.00} for each violation of the FDCPA, per incident of harm. This is enforceable through small claims court or other legal avenues. Additionally, a notice of lien will be filed against all personal and principal assets to recover the owed amount.\n\nVI ( a ). CASE LAW AND JUDGEMENTS AGAINST DEBT COLLECTORS The Act is a strict liability statute ; violations of the Act do not need to be intentional to be actionable. Smith v.\n\nNational Credit Systems , Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 836, 840 ( D. Az. 2011 ) Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 ( 2010 ) held that a debt collector who makes an incorrect statement of law in communications FDCPA 's bona fide error defense, per 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( c ), even if it was an unintentional error.\n\nBecause the FDCPA is a strict liability statute, Plaintiff need only demonstrate one violation of its provisions to be entitled to a favorable judgment. Doshay v. Global Credit and Collection Corporation, 796 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1304 ( D.Colo. 2011 ) Simply stated, if an attorney regularly engages in debt collection activities, that attorney is a debt collector under the FDCA and is subject to its provisions. This court holds that there is no additional implied exemption for attorneys when performing tasks of a legal nature. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ) The FDCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed liberally in favor of the consumer. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1117 ( 10th Cir. 2002 ) Regarding hearsay exceptions for business records : In short, it is manifest that, in this case, those reports are not for the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business. Unlike payrolls, accounts receivable, accounts payable, bills of lading, and the like, these reports are calculated for use essentially in the court, not in the business. Their primary utility is in litigating, not in railroading. Palmer v Hoffman 318 US 109 ( 1943 ) Affidavit Decision Many more cases have proven this : De facto or de jure rulings secured by incestuous relationships in a lower District Court are to be decided by the trier of fact on the evidence in an Appellate Court judged by facts alone. Lewis v. ACB Business Services , Inc. 135 F.3d 389 6th Cir. ( 1998 ). An unconstitutional act is not a law ; it confers no rights ; it imposes no duties ; it affords no protection ; it creates no office ; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 178 ( 1886 ) In Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA , Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 919, 932 ( W.D. Wis. 2013 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX was awarded {$570000.00} in damages for the harassment involved. \nAdditionally there have been numerous judgments against debt collectors for similar violations such as : Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Services et . al. 2:09-CV-00646-TJS, revolving around inaccurate claims on a credit report. In that case, for similar claims, the jury awarded Dixon-Rollins {$500000.00} ; this amount was reduced to {$270000.00} by the court. \nEven a mere massage places you at risk : Gryzbowski v. I.C. System, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 618 ( 2010 ) found a message was a communication in an attempt to collect a debt ; and Mark v. J.C. Christensen & Associates , Inc., Civil No. 09-100 ADM/SRN, 2009 WL 2407700 ( D.Minn. Aug. 4, 2009 ) found a voicemail to be the same. Even worse, in Costa v.\n\nNational Action Financial Services, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1069 ( E.D. Cal. 2007 ), NAFS failed to state a message was from a debt collector and lost. Romea v. Heiberger & Associates, 988 F. Supp. 715 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ) ; and Inman v. NCO Fin.\n\nSys., Inc., No. CIV.A. 08-5866, 2009 WL 3415281, at *1 ( E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2009 ) found pre-recorded calls count as communication. \nIn the case of Brim v. Midland Credit Management , Inc., 795 F. Supp.2d 1255 ( 2011 ) the jury rendered a verdict awarding plaintiff {$100000.00} in compensatory damages and {$630000.00} in punitive damages due to Midland Credits willful noncompliance of its duties under federal law ( FCRA ) to adequately investigate the consumers repeated credit report disputes over a 2-year period. Midland Credit sought to vacate the judgment or reduce the plaintiffs award, but the court refused, finding that a punitive damages award of roughly six times the actual damages award of {$100000.00} was appropriate under Supreme Court standards. \nOther cases showing the ease of incurring FDCPA violations, like Cavallaro v. Law Office of Shapiro & Kreisman, 933 F. Supp. 1148 E.D.N.Y. ( 1996 ) ; and Masciarelli v. Richard J. Boudreau & Associates , LLC, 529 F. Supp. 2d 183 ( 2007 ) ; and Harrington v. CACV OF COLORADO , LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 128 ( 2007 ) ; and Picht v. Hawks, 77 F. Supp.\n\n2d 1041 ( 1999 ) ; and West v. Nationwide Credit , Inc., 998 F. Supp. 642 ( 1998 ) ; and Cloman v. Jackson, 988 F2nd 1314, 1320 ( 1993 ) ; and Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions , Inc., 584 F.3d 1350 ( 2009 ).\n\nIncluding case law that shows pro se and pro per litigation is extremely effective in rendering invalid debt obsolete, such as Acosta v. Campbell Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB ( 2006 ) ; and Sherman v. Blair , Case No : 5:15-cv-36- Oc-34PRL ( 2015 ) ; and Stinson v. Asset Acceptance , LLC, No. 1:05cv1026 JCC ( 2006 ) ; and Chlanda v. Wymard No.\n\n3-93-321 ( 1994 ) .VII. FINAL PLEA AND RECOMMENDATION Litigation can be prohibitively expensive and is best avoided. If necessary, I am prepared to represent myself sui juris and pursue legal action in forma pauperis at no cost. However, it is likely that your organization will need to engage a lawyer 's services. Opting to sue in small claims court may restrict your defense options, should choose this path due to numerous legal infractions. Given the low cost-effectiveness of a lawsuit with limitedI means, this communication serves as a sincere effort to settle this issue without resorting to court. I am open to a private and amicable resolution, including private arbitration. I appreciate your consideration of this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-14T18:13:54.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Telecommunications debt","zip_code":"23188","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9263471","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2024-06-14T17:50:05.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Supp.2d 1255 ( 2011 ) the jury <em>rendered</em> a verdict awarding plaintiff {$100000.00} in compensatory damages and {$630000.00} in punitive damages due to Midland Credits willful noncompliance of its duties under federal law ( FCRA ) to adequately <em>investigate</em> the consumers repeated credit report <em>disputes</em> over a 2-year period."]},"sort":[7.265379,"9263471"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3052291","_score":5.1110325,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"A ) Intro : Fraudulent Submission to Debt Collection Agencies & Others On or about XX/XX/XXXX [ after a 5+ year stint trying to gain up most favorable resolution ] ; judgment by Superior Courts of XXXX County has finally been served but not before substantial damage ( s ) had been done from trying to resolve every illegal aspect set-forth by Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers for simply complaining being delivered a cockroach pest infested slum conditioned dump. \n\nSo a simple [ but rightful and legal Former Tenant dispute ] against Former Landlord led to Former Landlord intentionally breaching lease agreement contract and intentionally to have violated Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act ; then after conducting such negligence that led to being \" Wrongfully Evicted ''! \n\nFormer Landlord drummed up false allegations and fraudulently submitted me to numerous debt collection agencies and various other agencies in manner to collect on a debt I never was responsible for ; then intentionally gave no cooperation for resolve ; while intentionally failed to have made, any type of appropriate resolve prior to Superior Court Judge to have finalized her XX/XX/XXXX decision. \n\nIn manner how Superior Court Judge rendered judgment ; Superior Court judge did not relieve full story within in it's entirety of truth to what actually was set-forth before courts in a self-representing manner so resolve could be gained in full against negligence and fraudulent misconduct. In Superior Court Judge 's XX/XX/XXXX Minute Entry ; confirmation can be found to confirm Superior Court Judge did not relieve full story ; however, attached supporting documentation can fill the gaps to being fraudulently submitted to debt collection agencies. \n\nB ) About Attached Supporting Documentation : Due to in-depth-ness of Pure Fraud that involved Identity theft and Theft by Fraud ; without my presence to give testimony to each attached document ; and because, supporting documentation upload is limited to 10MB, not all documentation to support Consumer Complaint may upload ; but that which can be uploaded will simply reveal at a glance Fraudulent Misconduct of Pure Fraud, Identity theft, and Theft by Fraud and Fraudulent submission to debt collection agencies. \n\nBecause Superior Courts failed to relieve full story of circumstances and only gave a summation ; in essence to lessen any considerable confusion that could occur from readings hereof and/or from attached documents ; it might be much easier to [ first and foremost ] review Superior Court 's documented Minute Entries from date of ... \n\n1 ) XX/XX/XXXX where expresses \" I did nothing wrong '' and was not the party to have breached lease and violated Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act.\n\n2 ) By doing so? \n\nIt can become more understandable to my mentioning actions taken by Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers from onset of dispute ; along with any and all other agencies used to help them carry out their Fraudulent actions ; all parties involved was set to gain profits out of and from negligent misconduct which makes for Pure Fraud that involves identity theft, and Theft by Fraud ; as to my strong belief, that! \n\nFormer Landlord and/or anyone of his Co-Conspirers falsified a document to lease agreement contract thus stole my identity by forging my signature to make it appear as though I signature signed the false document in manner falsified document could match with their false allegation they set-forth in courts as defense ; by stating.. \n\nPlaintiff, without Defendant 's permission or release, surrendered possession of keys and apartment on XX/XX/XXXX. In doing so, Plaintiff willfully and intentionally breached the rental agreement to which he was a party. \n\nProvided in \" Section C '' as follows is \" Background Scope & Analysis '' that brings to forefront action of Fraudulent Misconduct worthy to be reported for Consumer Attention Getting Action ; Section C helps substantiate attached documents ; and attached documents help substantiates my \" Consumer Complaint '' to how Fraud, Identity theft, and Theft by Fraud occurred as never should have been submitted to debt agencies. \n\nC ) Scope & Background Analysis : On or about XX/XX/XXXX lease agreement contract was entered into with former Landlord XXXX  XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AZ XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX because I complained to [ former landlord ] who intentionally delivered a cockroach pest infested slum conditioned dump that needed much remedy and repair. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX a dispute onset from my written notification expressing being delivered a cockroach pest infested slum conditioned dump ; and hereafter and from this point forward, Former Landlord and his co-conspirers failed to perform any duties held within the lease agreement contract ; or in other words, Former Landlord intentionally breached lease agreement and intentionally violated Arizona Residential Landlord Statues. \n\nAccording to Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act statue Article 5. Retaliatory Action 33-1381, Retaliatory conduct prohibited establishes a Landlord may not retaliate by brining or threatening to bring an action for possession after a Tenant complained to landlord of a violation under section 33-1324. \n\nI made numerous written complaints expressing to Former Landlord infractions that violated Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act statue 33-1324. According to Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act Article 4 Remedies statue 33-1361 Non-compliance by the landlord ; establishes if a landlord failed to make remedy within five ( 5 ) days of written notification the lease agreement contract terminates. \n\nInstead of Former Landlord making resolution or to have made mutual resolve no later than noon on date of XX/XX/XXXX to mutually term lease ; Former Landlord intentionally maintained me to lease agreement with no intentions ever settling any matters but rather elected to expense time, money, and effort avoiding accepting responsibilities and liabilities for their negligent misconduct ; that came to be discovered as \" Fraud ''. \n\nD ) Former Landlord with Co-Conspirers Wrongfully Sued to Evict : With efforts to wrongfully gain possession by prohibited retaliatory misconduct. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX alleging Former Landlord hired an attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX [ that together working in harmony ] along with XXXX XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AZ XXXX [ who is named within the lease as Property Manager ] intentionally and illegally made it appear as though I was the \" at fault party '' to have breached the lease. \n\nPrior to illegal act of being wrongfully evicted ; Former Landlord \" prohibited by law '' retaliated numerous times before bringing an Eviction Action against me as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the party to have \" legally '' made it appear as though Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX had every legal right to evict, by citing, I failed to pay rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX ; but yet, rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX was contract termed as FREE ; therefore, the act itself was intentional breach of lease agreement and of wrongful eviction. \n\nE ) Motive for Committing Fraud by Wrongful Eviction : Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act Article 4 Remedies statue 33-1361 establishes ... if there is a noncompliance by the landlord with section 33-1324 materially effecting health and safety, tenant may deliver a written notice to the landlord specifying acts and omissions constituting the breach, the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than five days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied in five days. \n\nWhen take into account Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX intentionally breached entire lease agreement contract by failing to perform lease agreement contract obligated duties ; plus, intentionally violated statues of Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act, then further take into account, that? \n\na ) Former Landlord failed to move me to another rental unit as mutual resolve prior to noon on XX/XX/XXXX b ) Former Landlord failed to make any remedies to rental unit # XXXX prior to noon on XX/XX/XXXX. \nc ) Former Landlord had no intentions to mutually term lease agreement by noon on XX/XX/XXXX. \nd ) Because Former Landlord failed to come to a mutual resolve no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX ) From on or about XX/XX/XXXX that moved through XX/XX/XXXX I delivered numerous written notifications requesting Former Landlord to make remedy to former rental unit # XXXX  ; but no remedies were ever made. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX actions that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company under took filing a false \" Complaint Eviction Action constituted intentional breach of lease agreement that meant under Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act statue 33-1321.\n\nFormer Landlord had an obligated duty to return my move-in costs of security deposit of {$50.00} dollars for securing a unit and return pro-rated expense of {$190.00} expensed for XX/XX/XXXX rent ; but yet, when learned from my written notification ( s ) of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I wanted to mutually term the lease ; Former Landlord had no intention ever returning move-in costs of {$240.00}. \n\nBecause I had interest to mutually term lease agreement by noon on XX/XX/XXXX ; Former Landlord knew he would be losing my business of a 6 month lease agreement term that amounted to {$3000.00} dollars. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX Former Landlord teamed with XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and on XX/XX/XXXX ; Former Landlord and his co-conspirers wrongfully sued to evict to have made it appear as though I was the \" at fault '' party to have failed to pay rent for XX/XX/XXXX which means? \n\nFormer Landlord 's only true intentions were to commit FRAUD which extents prior to lease agreement contract to have commenced into effect but took pursuing civil legal action in Superior Courts of XXXX County before cold hard facts of Theft by Fraud, Identity Theft, and Pure Fraud could unravel in full. \n\nF ) How Action of Fraud By Wrongful Eviction Was Masked : The act of Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their representing Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to have filed a sue to evict action in court of law was not only an act to avoid accepting responsibility liability for their negligent misconduct. \n\nThe act of Former Landlord and his co-conspirers to have falsely filed a Complaint Eviction Action in small claims judicial was mere smoke and mirrors to mask the act of committing FRAUD! \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I filed my answer reply to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's fraudulent and falsified \" Complaint Eviction Action '' ; included within my answer reply were my exhibit of \" Concession Addendum '' exhibiting XX/XX/XXXX rent was contract termed as FREE. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I was set to appear to court to defense against Former Landlord 's falsified allegation ( to have allegedly ) failed to pay rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX in essence Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX could not gain judgment by default ; for if held true, that if, Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX had every legal right to sue to evict for my failure to pay rent for XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFormer Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX would not have voluntarily dismissed their own small claims court case on XX/XX/XXXX without prejudice but rather allowed for court Judge of smalls claims judicial to settle any dispute to whether or not suing to evict was proper and the most needed action worthy to be carried out, but? \n\nAction taken by Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. though their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were of no accident but rather an intentional strategic act voluntarily dismissing their small claims court case for purpose I would not appear to testify against their false Complaint Eviction Action '' as any judge to have resided over my testimony and evidence immediately would have seen rent payment was not due until XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company filed a false \" Complaint Eviction Action '' cause their intent was not to settle any matters but rather commit FRAUD by making it legally appear as though I would be the at fault party to have failed to pay XX/XX/XXXX rent in manner to keep and maintain my move-in costs of {$240.00}, and in manner to keep expensed court costs of {$45.00} dollars it cost for me to defend against a false allegation ; while all at the same time, profit gain legal fees, and other costs deemed by Former Landlord despite their negligence ; but as so happened to be? \n\nOn or XX/XX/XXXX I gave spoils to Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's fraudulent act of making false allegation in small claims courts of justice whence I filed my court answer reply to being wrongfully evicted, as you would think?\n\nFormer Landlord and his Co-Conspirers would have ceased their Fraudulent Misconduct on this day of XX/XX/XXXX ; but Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers were non-phased, they simply had more than one ( 1 ) way to commit FRAUD at getting me submitted to Debt Collection agencies. \n\nG ) Former Landlord and his Co-conspirers Forced Civil Legal Action : On or about XX/XX/XXXX hereafter XXXX XXXX XXXX dismissed their falsely filed and fraudulent \" Complaint Eviction Action '' ; I made attempts to make resolve with Former Landlord in manner to recover incurred damages no later than XX/XX/XXXX ; and alerting if no resolve was made by XX/XX/XXXX, I would pursue civil legal action. \n\nInstead of Former Landlord making attempt ( s ) to make resolve no later than XXXX XXXX? \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX Former Landlord delivered a \" Move Out Statement '' alleging debt owed {$3400.00} to which I did not understand such charges since rent for month of XX/XX/XXXX was contract termed as free. \n\nInstead of Former Landlord coming to a resolve or resolution to avoid any type of legal proceedings? \n\nFormer Landlord directed matters to their attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who on or about XX/XX/XXXX delivered written notification citing \" Please be advised that my client has no intention to settle this matter with you because my client did nothing wrong '' ; then proceeded to cite in belief, their client, but my former landlord [ XXXX  XXXX at XXXX XXXX ] had every right to pursue eviction action, then on top of this action? \n\nFormer Landlord with their representing attorney added in a touch of intimidation and threat by citing \" If you pursue legal action against our client, we will take all legal action necessary to recover from you all damages, costs and attorney 's fees incurred with defending XXXX at XXXX [ formally known as ] Smoketree Apartments ; as it turn out to be to what I felt were of a threat by Former Landlord ; actually, it were of no threat. \n\nBefore I could act on taking civil legal action against Former Landlord ; on or bout XX/XX/XXXX Former Landlord fraudulently submitted me to collection agency of XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for amount of {$3300.00} for reasons I could not gather and could not understand at this time. \n\nH ) Efforts Resolving Fraudulent Debt Collection Action : Prior to taking any civil legal action against Former Landlord ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I moved to gain understanding for resolve from Former Landlord and their representing attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; but instead of Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX co-operating for resolve, I received written notification from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who cited in bold print \" Please Be Advised That This Communication is From A Debt Collector ''. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX [ as a self-representing entity ] I moved to file a claim in small claims court in manner to prove Former Landlord breached lease agreement and to recover for damages incurred to my personal property and personal belongings. \n\nIn midst of filing a claim at small claims judicial I notified collection agency XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX. to gain understanding to a XX/XX/XXXX debt action. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX. returned reply stating balance owed {$0.00} dollars stating account been received in error ; but to my firm belief, account was not received in error, Former Landlord made a retaliatory but a fraudulent move to have fraudulently submitted me to XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX, but I had no solidified proof to prove my suspicion during this time to prove Fraud in its entirety. \n\nI ) Abuse of Legal Justice System to Commit & Carry out Fraud Already discussed under \" Section E '' of Former Landlord and his Co-Conspirers filed a wrongful eviction action in small claims judicial courts ; in lieu of attached \" Complaint Eviction Action, if pay close attention, the \" Complaint Eviction Action '' illustrates that ; Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stood to gain profits up to {$8900.00} dollars from their served up negligence and fraudulent misconduct if I had not made dispute against their fraudulent claim that led to being wrongfully evicted. \n\nSo of course? \n\nHereafter I filed and served my XX/XX/XXXX small claims complaint in essence to recover property damage and to prove Former Landlord was the party to have breached the lease ; instead of Former Landlord to have come to a small claims court case resolve?\n\nFormer Landlord hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to intentionally dismiss my small claims court case which came dismissed on or about XX/XX/XXXX ; and just like XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered in their XX/XX/XXXX written communication ; to have cited ... \n\n\" If you pursue legal action against our client, we will take all legal action necessary to recover from you all damages, costs and attorney 's fees incurred with defending XXXX at XXXX [ formally known as ] XXXX XXXX, and so they did, but yet, in manner for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to have gained judgment ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX perjured under oath to maintain their fraudulent scheme and claim to fraudulent collect on a debt by making a false claim whence alleged .... \n\nPlaintiff, without Defendant 's permission or release, surrendered possession of keys and apartment on XX/XX/XXXX. In doing so, Plaintiff willfully and intentionally breached rental agreement to which he was a party. \n\nBy XX/XX/XXXX legal costs and fees incurred of attorney fees at {$4000.00} and costs in amount of {$190.00} as interest accrued at rate of ( 4.25 % ) for losing my small claims court case against Former Landlord.\n\nActions of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appear to have had all legal rights to recover legal fees and costs for representing their client of XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX judgment for legal fees and costs did not follow in accordance with small claims judicial practices ; but rather, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX intentionally moved my small claims court matters to the justice of peace to be dismissed in manner [ as being alleged ] to prevent their Fraud from being exposed, as once again to the mentioning, in that if, I had appeared in court to testify? \n\nAny judge to have resided over my testimony and evidence would have immediately seen Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filed a false allegation against me. \n\nJ ) Pure Fraud by Fraudulent Debt Collecting Action ( s ) : Instead of Former Landlord leaving matters as they may from XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX received account from XXXX at XXXX regarding unit # XXXX in error and account balance at {$0.00} ; Former Landlord submitted me to yet another collection agency of U.S. Collections West, Inc. for amount of {$3400.00}. \n\nAction taken by Former Landlord through their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was nothing more than ongoing retaliatory misconduct accompanied with Pure Fraud. \n\nHereafter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX committed perjury under oath claiming I willfully walked away from my lease agreement obligations ; and that of, Former Landlord to have submitted me to U.S. Collection West , Inc. for amount of {$3400.00} after matters had resolved with XXXX. XXXX XXXX , XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFormer Landlord gave no other alternative but for me to pursue matters at division of Superior Court of XXXX County for resolve to help determine to whom breached the lease. \n\nK ) Superior Court Civil Legal Action Had to Be Taken : On or about XX/XX/XXXX [ still a self-representing entity ] I filed a Breach of Contract claim with Superior Court Clerk of XXXX County citing contributory negligence that involved Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in manner for judicial courts to determine what party or parties breached lease agreement, violated Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, and for Fraudulent misconduct. \n\nFormer Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to represent against my Superior Court Case ; during Superior Court proceedings, on a number of occasions Former Landlord and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. had ample opportunities to make resolve prior to judge delivering verdict. \n\nMy Superior Court Claim was filed in Superior Courts on or about XX/XX/XXXX and should have reached and/or come concluded [ approximately ] no later than year end of XX/XX/XXXX ; but instead of Former Land and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX resolving all matters through their counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX while under jurisdiction of Superior Court. \n\nAccompanied by actions of Superior Courts of XXXX County who failed to uphold Ariz. R. Civ . P. Rule 1 Scope and Purpose that established rules that govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in Superior Court of Arizona ; they should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and parties to secure just, speedy, and in expensive determination of every action and proceedings. \n\nFormer Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to uphold Ariz. R. Civ . P. Rule 1 Scope and Purpose whence intentionally delayed trial by performing all types of \" bad faith '' litigation tactics rather than to have made resolve no later than XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nL ) Additional Fraudulent Discoveries : While XXXX XXXX XXXX performed \" bad faith '' litigation actions during Superior Court proceedings ; a sum of about four ( 4 ) years expired from date dispute initially onset that on or about XX/XX/XXXX while under oath of Superior Courts of XXXX County? \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company delivered under Ariz. R. Civ . P. 26.1 their Disclosure Statement that's of information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX expected to present into trial as exhibits and/or as evidence upon whence a trial date would get set. \n\nInclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was ... \n\n1 ) A copy of a document entitled \" Statement of Unit Condition '' that came as part of the lease agreement ; that this lease agreement, was delivered as a falsified document with my signature being forged. \n2 ) Inclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was the Residential Ledger from XXXX XXXX XXXX with drummed up Fraudulent Charges that totaled {$650.00}. \n3 ) Inclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was the XXXX XXXX XXXX Bill from XXXX at XXXX with drummed up fraudulent charges of {$740.00}. \n4 ) and Inclusive with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and company 's disclosure of information was ... \na copy of the Move out Statement with drummed up fraudulent charges of {$3400.00} I'd seen from on or about XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBecause of my discovery to additional drummed up fraudulent charges ; because of my discovery to finding my signature fraudulently had been forged to a falsified document ; and discovering that, my identity had been compromised by my name being forged. \n\nWhile under oath of Superior Courts of XXXX County? \n\nAriz. R. Civ . P. 26 ( g ) provided me the legal right to conduct a \" discovery '' investigation via Personal Consultation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I delivered written personal consultation to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX addressing my discovery concerns but gained no response nor cooperation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nIn manner having to prove to courts during trial proceedings my signature had been forged to the lease agreement contract [ document of ] Statement Unit Condition. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I hired a handwriting analysis expert to examine the document in question with my forged signature ; results returned, my signature indeed had been forged thus confirming I had not authored the document that came into question thus confirming someone stole my identity by forging my signature. \n\nM ) Reservation Agreement for Holding Former Rental Unit # XXXX : Prior to Former Landlord, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX committing prohibited retaliatory misconduct that led up to being wrongfully evicted ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I visited XXXX at XXXX XXXX  formerly known as XXXX XXXX XXXX ; it was verbally addressed if interested to renting an apartment I must pay {$50.00} dollars security to hold or reserve a unit. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I paid amount {$50.00} dollars as security deposit to secure a rental unit for leasing. \n\nIt's standard procedure in manner if there is an occurred error needed to be remedied, standard error correcting procedure is to simply draw a single line through error and make proper correction, and bring to attention of person who made and/or created error if not present ; but if present, error correcting should be done while person is presently available. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX I visited Management office of Former Landlord to follow up regarding leasing a unit ; on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, I was introduced to the Reservation Agreement Certificate, the Reservation Agreement Certificate substantiates XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reserved rental unit # XXXX for my leasing pleasures but immediately noted upon being addressed about the lease agreement, the leasing term was incorrect. \n\nFormer Landlord 's Management reserved rental unit # XXXX for a 12 month term ; but yet, I never addressed Former Landlord 's Management I desired a 12 month lease ; I only desired a 6 month lease agreement term ; Former Landlord 's Management who bore initials \" SB '' properly drew a single line through error and made proper changes to meet my desired rental-leasing agreement pleasures of a 6 month term. \n\nOn this day of XX/XX/XXXX while being addressed by Former Landlord 's Management regarding move-in costs of pro-rated rent ; it was addressed, amount owed was {$190.00} ; but yet, never a discussion about a Non-refundable Administrative fee of {$120.00} dollars needed to be paid. \n\nN ) Former Landlord & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Committed Theft By Fraud of {$50.00} Dollars : When delivered money order of {$50.00} dollars on XX/XX/XXXX that represented reserving rental unit for leasing ; while my presence was known, Former Landlord failed to make any kind of error correction to my submitted payment of {$50.00} dollars as a security deposit to hold a rental unit ; here fore, on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, Former Landlord accepted payment as a security deposit for holding a rental unit. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX when visited Management office of Former Landlord to follow up regarding a leased unit being on hold ; on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, while my presence was known, Former Landlord failed to make any kind of error correction to my submitted payment of {$50.00} dollars as a security deposit ; here fore, on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, Former Landlord accepted payment as a security deposit for holding a rental unit. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX when visited office of Former Landlord to sign lease agreement ; on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, while my presence was known during lease agreement signing, Former Landlord failed to make any kind of error correction to my submitted payment of {$50.00} dollars as a security deposit ; here fore, on this day of XX/XX/XXXX, Former Landlord accepted payment as a security deposit as to have held a rental unit for leasing that took effect on XX/XX/XXXX, which means? \n\nIf payment of {$50.00} dollars had other means of use other than for \" Security Deposit '' to reserve a unit for leasing ; Former Landlord was responsible to have made proper error correction while my presence was known and available to him on XX/XX/XXXX, but Former Landlord failed to bring any error correcting needs to my attention. \n\nBecause Former Landlord accepted payment of {$50.00} dollars in manner to hold an apartment unit to be leased as leasing terms would commence on XX/XX/XXXX ; holding and reserving an apartment unit for lease can be construed as a \" Security Deposit '' where such term of \" Security Deposit '' applies within the Rental Agreement.\n\nAccording to Rental Agreement having to pay a Security Deposit to hold, reserve, or secure a rental unit for lease was clearly termed as N/A ; so mere fact, is that, Former Landlord fraudulently took my {$50.00} dollars without applying it for it's intended delivered purpose, then failed to return my {$50.00} dollars payment, is nothing but FRAUD by keeping and maintaining profits gained by negligence, but FRAUD did not conclude at this juncture. \n\nO ) Fraudulent Rental Agreement : A Non-refundable Administrative fee of {$120.00} dollars appears to Rental Agreement but appears in manner as a need for separate payment that would strictly define a Non-Refundable Administrative fee for {$120.00} dollars as same would apply for expenditure of pro-rated rent being of a separate payment for {$110.00} in manner pro-rated rent is strictly defined within the rental agreement as payment for pro-rated rent. \n\nThe Reservation Agreement Certificate states move-in costs at {$240.00} that was never signed by me ; on or about XX/XX/XXXX I paid move-in costs of {$50.00} dollars as security so a rental could be reserved on hold for leasing ; then on or about XX/XX/XXXX I paid amount of {$190.00} for move-in costs as pro-rated rent which summed to be {$240.00} for a total move-in to commence on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAccording to Rental Agreement a Non-Refundable Fee amounts to {$120.00} dollars plus {$2.00} for tax that totals {$120.00} for a Non-Refundable Administrative fee. \n\nOn page 2 of 24 of Rental Agreement sub-topic of Administrative Fee states Owner hereby acknowledges receipt from Resident ( s ) of a non-refundable Administrative fee in amount of {$120.00} which shall immediately be used by Owner to help defray the administrative costs associated with preparing the lease paperwork ; as stated prior, this action of Non Refundable Administrative Fee deserved it's own separate payment for strictly being defined as payment for Non Refundable Administrative Fees but I never directly paid amount of {$120.00} for Administrative Fees. \n\nPayment given was {$50.00} dollars for reserving a unit and {$190.00} for pro-rated rent ; but yet, according to Rental Agreement, pro-rated rent in amount of {$110.00} was due on XX/XX/XXXX to cover period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, but yet? \n\nFormer Landlord accepted payment of {$190.00} on or about XX/XX/XXXX ; which actually, and by Rental Agreement Terms is five ( 5 ) days prior to XX/XX/XXXX ; so facts are, pro-rated rent of {$110.00} dollars was due on XX/XX/XXXX which is same date lease agreement were to take and effect and actually took but fraud did not conclude at this juncture ... spacing is limited.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-10-21T15:46:20.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"85224","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3052291","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. Collections West, Inc.","date_received":"2018-10-21T14:34:08.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It's standard procedure in manner if there is an occurred <em>error</em> needed to be remedied, standard <em>error</em> <em>correcting</em> procedure is to simply draw a single line through <em>error</em> and make proper correction, and bring to attention of person who made and/or created <em>error</em> if not present ; but if present, <em>error</em> <em>correcting</em> should be done while person is presently available."]},"sort":[5.1110325,"3052291"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":23,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":23}]}},"product":{"doc_count":23,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":10}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":23,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":11,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":11}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":3},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"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":2}]}},{"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":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":23,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":22},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":23,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":15},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":5},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":23,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":23}]}},"company":{"doc_count":23,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. Collections West, Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":23,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":23,"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":7},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":23,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}