{"took":221,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":29,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7467315","_score":18.009457,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally file a complaint against XXXX XXXX. I recently became aware of serious allegations against XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These allegations have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington state, and other entities. \n\nI believe that my own experiences with XXXX align with some of these allegations, particularly in relation to loan payments and difficulties in accessing lower repayment options. \n\nSpecifically, I have identified 16 late payments on my credit report for four loans that were previously serviced by XXXX and are now under XXXX 's management. I have been in communication with Aidvantage regarding these late payments since XX/XX/XXXX, and while they have been responsive, I remain dissatisfied with the explanations provided. \n\nHere is a timeline of events for your reference : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I reviewed my credit report, as I do periodically, and noticed a total of 16 late payments being reported from four different student loans serviced by XXXX on all three credit bureaus. These late payments were reported from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. I was unaware of these late payments, prompting me to contact Aidvantage via email on XX/XX/XXXX [ see attachment XXXX and XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded to my email with a request to dispute all credit reporting issues with their Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX in writing [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a letter to XXXX 's Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX and sent it via regular mail. In this letter, I requested information about the late payments, with a particular emphasis on the forbearance status I had placed on these loans during the relevant time period [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a letter to me confirming that they had initiated an investigation into the matter [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX communicated that they were still actively researching the issue [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX provided additional information regarding my loan 's past due status. This included details about when my loans first fell past due ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and when they were subsequently made current via XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, XXXX included copies of XXXX letters from XXXX to me during that specific time frame. These letters consisted of statements of my account, notices of past-due status, and other essential correspondence. [ see attachment XXXX ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I composed a letter to Aidvantage in which I explained that I had placed my loans on forbearance through the XXXX website before my loans became delinquent. According to my records, this occurred around XX/XX/XXXX. I also clarified that I had not received any of the letters sent by XXXX during that period, as none of them were delivered to my correct address. I attached proof of my change of address to the letter. Additionally, I informed XXXX that my identity had been stolen during this time period, resulting in missed letters and phone calls from creditors. [ see attachment XXXX ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from XXXX stating that they had concluded their investigation and determined that the reporting was accurate. They indicated that none of the late payments would be deleted. [ see attachment XXXX ] Furthermore, upon reading about the allegations against XXXX, I realized that I lacked a clear understanding of the differences between forbearance, income-driven repayment, and deferment options. Had I been properly informed by XXXX, I would have made a more informed choice to prevent interest from accruing and potentially doubling my original principal loan amount.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-25T23:35:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"902XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7467315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-08-25T23:35:32.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing to formally file a complaint <em>against</em> XXXX XXXX. I recently became aware of <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em> <em>against</em> XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These <em>allegations</em> have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection <em>Bureau</em> ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington <em>state</em>, and other entities."]},"sort":[18.009457,"7467315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7466219","_score":18.009457,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally file a complaint against XXXX  Corporation. I recently became aware of serious allegations against XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These allegations have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington state, and other entities. \n\nI believe that my own experiences with Navient align with some of these allegations, particularly in relation to loan payments and difficulties in accessing lower repayment options.\n\nSpecifically, I have identified 16 late payments on my credit report for four loans that were previously serviced by Navient and are now under Aidvantage 's management. I have been in communication with Aidvantage regarding these late payments since XX/XX/XXXX, and while they have been responsive, I remain dissatisfied with the explanations provided. \n\nHere is a timeline of events for your reference : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I reviewed my credit report, as I do periodically, and noticed a total of 16 late payments being reported from four different student loans serviced by Aidvantage on all three credit bureaus. These late payments were reported from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. I was unaware of these late payments, prompting me to contact Aidvantage via email on XX/XX/XXXX [ see attachment 1 and 2 ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage responded to my email with a request to dispute all credit reporting issues with their Credit Bureau Management Team in writing [ see attachment 3 ]. \n\nOn the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a letter to Aidvantage 's Credit Bureau Management Team and sent it via regular mail. In this letter, I requested information about the late payments, with a particular emphasis on the forbearance status I had placed on these loans during the relevant time period [ see attachment 4 ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage sent a letter to me confirming that they had initiated an investigation into the matter [ see attachment 5 ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage communicated that they were still actively researching the issue [ see XXXX  XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage provided additional information regarding my loan 's past due status. This included details about when my loans first fell past due ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and when they were subsequently made current via XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, Aidvantage included copies of 20 letters from Navient to me during that specific time frame. These letters consisted of statements of my account, notices of past-due status, and other essential correspondence. [ see attachment 7 ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I composed a letter to Aidvantage in which I explained that I had placed my loans on forbearance through the Navient website before my loans became delinquent. According to my records, this occurred around XX/XX/XXXX. I also clarified that I had not received any of the letters sent by Navient during that period, as none of them were delivered to my correct address. I attached proof of my change of address to the letter. Additionally, I informed Aidvantage that my identity had been stolen during this time period, resulting in missed letters and phone calls from creditors. [ see attachment 8 ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Aidvantage stating that they had concluded their investigation and determined that the reporting was accurate. They indicated that none of the late payments would be deleted. [ see attachment 9 ] Furthermore, upon reading about the allegations against Navient, I realized that I lacked a clear understanding of the differences between forbearance, income-driven repayment, and deferment options. Had I been properly informed by Navient, I would have made a more informed choice to prevent interest from accruing and potentially doubling my original principal loan amount.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-25T23:35:27.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"902XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7466219","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2023-08-25T23:27:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing to formally file a complaint <em>against</em> XXXX  Corporation. I recently became aware of <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em> <em>against</em> XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These <em>allegations</em> have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection <em>Bureau</em> ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington <em>state</em>, and other entities."]},"sort":[18.009457,"7466219"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7467316","_score":18.007607,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally file a complaint against XXXX XXXX. I recently became aware of serious allegations against XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These allegations have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington state, and other entities. \n\nI believe that my own experiences with XXXX align with some of these allegations, particularly in relation to loan payments and difficulties in accessing lower repayment options. \n\nSpecifically, I have identified 16 late payments on my credit report for four loans that were previously serviced by XXXX and are now under XXXX 's management. I have been in communication with XXXX  regarding these late payments since XX/XX/XXXX, and while they have been responsive, I remain dissatisfied with the explanations provided. \n\nHere is a timeline of events for your reference : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I reviewed my credit report, as I do periodically, and noticed a total of 16 late payments being reported from four different student loans serviced by XXXX on all three credit bureaus. These late payments were reported from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. I was unaware of these late payments, prompting me to contact XXXX  via email on XX/XX/XXXX [ see attachment 1 and 2 ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded to my email with a request to dispute all credit reporting issues with their Credit Bureau Management Team in writing [ see attachment 3 ]. \n\nOn the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a letter to XXXX 's Credit Bureau Management Team and sent it via regular mail. In this letter, I requested information about the late payments, with a particular emphasis on the forbearance status I had placed on these loans during the relevant time period [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a letter to me confirming that they had initiated an investigation into the matter [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX communicated that they were still actively researching the issue [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX provided additional information regarding my loan 's past due status. This included details about when my loans first fell past due ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and when they were subsequently made current via Administrative Forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, XXXX included copies of 20 letters from XXXX to me during that specific time frame. These letters consisted of statements of my account, notices of past-due status, and other essential correspondence. [ see attachment 7 ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I composed a letter to XXXX  in which I explained that I had placed my loans on forbearance through the XXXX website before my loans became delinquent. According to my records, this occurred around XX/XX/XXXX. I also clarified that I had not received any of the letters sent by XXXX during that period, as none of them were delivered to my correct address. I attached proof of my change of address to the letter. Additionally, I informed XXXX that my identity had been stolen during this time period, resulting in missed letters and phone calls from creditors. [ see attachment XXXX ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from XXXX stating that they had concluded their investigation and determined that the reporting was accurate. They indicated that none of the late payments would be deleted. [ see attachment XXXX ] Furthermore, upon reading about the allegations against XXXX, I realized that I lacked a clear understanding of the differences between forbearance, income-driven repayment, and deferment options. Had I been properly informed by XXXX, I would have made a more informed choice to prevent interest from accruing and potentially doubling my original principal loan amount.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-25T23:35:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"902XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7467316","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-08-25T23:35:32.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing to formally file a complaint <em>against</em> XXXX XXXX. I recently became aware of <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em> <em>against</em> XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These <em>allegations</em> have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection <em>Bureau</em> ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington <em>state</em>, and other entities."]},"sort":[18.007607,"7467316"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7466220","_score":18.007607,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally file a complaint against XXXX XXXX. I recently became aware of serious allegations against XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These allegations have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington state, and other entities. \n\nI believe that my own experiences with XXXX align with some of these allegations, particularly in relation to loan payments and difficulties in accessing lower repayment options. \n\nSpecifically, I have identified 16 late payments on my credit report for XXXX loans that were previously serviced by XXXX and are now under XXXX 's management. I have been in communication with Aidvantage regarding these late payments since XX/XX/XXXX, and while they have been responsive, I remain dissatisfied with the explanations provided. \n\nHere is a timeline of events for your reference : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I reviewed my credit report, as I do periodically, and noticed a total of 16 late payments being reported from four different student loans serviced by XXXX on all three credit bureaus. These late payments were reported from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. I was unaware of these late payments, prompting me to contact Aidvantage via email on XX/XX/XXXX [ see attachment XXXX and XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded to my email with a request to dispute all credit reporting issues with their Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [ see attachment 3 ]. \n\nOn the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a letter to XXXX 's Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX and sent it via regular mail. In this letter, I requested information about the late payments, with a particular emphasis on the forbearance status I had placed on these loans during the relevant time period [ see attachment XXXX ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a letter to me confirming that they had initiated an investigation into the matter [ see attachment 5 ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX communicated that they were still actively researching the issue [ see attachment 6 ]. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX provided additional information regarding my loan 's past due status. This included details about when my loans first fell past due ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and when they were subsequently made current via XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, XXXX included copies of 20 letters from XXXX to me during that specific time frame. These letters consisted of statements of my account, notices of past-due status, and other essential correspondence. [ see attachment XXXX ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I composed a letter to Aidvantage in which I explained that I had placed my loans on forbearance through the XXXX website before my loans became delinquent. According to my records, this occurred around XX/XX/XXXX. I also clarified that I had not received any of the letters sent by XXXX during that period, as none of them were delivered to my correct address. I attached proof of my change of address to the letter. Additionally, I informed XXXX that my identity had been stolen during this time period, resulting in missed letters and phone calls from creditors. [ see attachment XXXX ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from XXXX stating that they had concluded their investigation and determined that the reporting was accurate. They indicated that none of the late payments would be deleted. [ see attachment XXXX ] Furthermore, upon reading about the allegations against XXXX, I realized that I lacked a clear understanding of the differences between forbearance, income-driven repayment, and deferment options. Had I been properly informed by XXXX, I would have made a more informed choice to prevent interest from accruing and potentially doubling my original principal loan amount.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-25T23:35:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"902XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7466220","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-08-25T23:35:32.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing to formally file a complaint <em>against</em> XXXX XXXX. I recently became aware of <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em> <em>against</em> XXXX regarding their student loan servicing practices. These <em>allegations</em> have been detailed in various reports and lawsuits, including those filed by the Consumer Financial Protection <em>Bureau</em> ( CFPB ), the attorneys general of Illinois and Washington <em>state</em>, and other entities."]},"sort":[18.007607,"7466220"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11167960","_score":15.170105,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"I do not remember taking out a loan from this company however, they are constantly sending me threatening emails to take out a warrant against me, destroy my job, blacklist my social security number, and ruin my credit by XXXX points. I do remember taking out a payday loan for {$300.00} a while back. Anyway, Please see copy and pasted email below along with the debt and impersonating a Federal Credit Bureau threatening to take out Federal charges on me. \n\nHello XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX After receiving this email, we will issue a legal warrant on your name within next couple of hours, so before you do anything read this email very carefully and respond back early as possible. \n\nYou are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed against you for three serious allegations. XXXX XXXX is a client of ours, and we are going to be representing them in future legal proceedings. \n\nThe charges with Speedy Cash pressed on you are : 1 ) Violation of Federal Banking Regulation 2 ) Collateral Check Fraud 3 ) Theft by Deception The affidavit states that XXXX XXXX was monitored online using the e-mail address XXXX, social security number, driver 's license, driver 's license sate, ip address, address which are in order to solicit funds from a restitution which is owned and operated by the XXXX XXXX, who owns and operates more than XXXX online cash websites, web portals and many of the sub lenders are working for them ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The funds were successfully transferred into your bank account utilizing an interstate EFT which stands for electronic funds transfer. \n\nBasically, all the payday loan companies and payday loan store in the state of PA working under my client which is XXXX XXXX  XXXX. \n\nWhen the creditor attempted to extract the funds back from your account as a repayment, at that time 6 EFTs were returned back constituting worthless electronic checks. So, as of now rather than chasing you for money the creditor has simply decided to write this money as a loss, as well as declared to be stolen, and they pressed charges against you. \n\nNow the affidavit is taken by FDCPA law that means Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under Section 9 Chapter 19.\n\nNow, this means just two things for you : 1. ) If you are on any state supervised probation on payroll, then you will need to intimate to the officer about this case. \n\n2. ) If you have any prior convictions, including but not limited to worthless check, grand theft or money laundering, so please be aware that they shall handle this case as a habitual offense as your state is zero tolerance state. \n\nThis is also to inform you that the creditor has all the rights and authorities to inform your employer about this case and what will be the results and consequences comes once this case is downloaded and executed with the judgments against you, it is because you have kept your employers name as a security and also as an additional security two more names were used.\n\nFinally, you have the right to hire an attorney, if you have one or if you can not afford one, then one shall be appointed to you. But please make sure that you have someone to help you out regarding this case because once this case is downloaded and executed with judgments against you and if you're found guilty under the bench of jury then you have to bear the court charges as a penalty and the Amount is {$8300.00} excluding your bail charges, your attorney charges and the due amount pending on your name. \n\nFinally, your name and Social Security Information would be reported to the three major credit bureaus of the USA such as, XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Ultimately it would be affecting your FICO scores by XXXX negative points and your social security number would be black listed, and you would also never be eligible for all the government benefits and entities. \nAccording to the orders of the courthouse, the State Investigation Department Officers will deliver all the legal documents to your current employer and that can risk your current job and once the judge opens your case for execution legally tomorrow, then these charges will be reflecting on your Credit Reports because of which it will be very difficult for you to get a new job in the future. \n\nFinally, this case is going to be downloaded in your State County Court and your Local County Sheriff department Monday at XXXXXXXX XXXX as per your State Standard Time and after then you will be forced to resolve this case legally by facing all the legal problems and spending money on your attorney as fees, case execution charges, legal penalties, bail charges, paper development charges on the top of the due amount that you owe from your creditor, that is {$3800.00}. \n\nIf you are willing to settle it out of the court, you can surely respond positively today itself. We can only accept your full payment today also there is no negotiation and there are no payment planes available as the issue at hand is extremely time sensitive. \n\nSo kindly respond to this mail to resolve this matter. I am waiting. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX ( Senior Investigator at FEDERAL CREDIT BUREAU )","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-16T16:24:02.000Z","issue":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","sub_product":"Payday loan","zip_code":"30534","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11167960","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AmeriCash Holding LLC","date_received":"2024-12-16T16:09:12.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed <em>against</em> you for <em>three</em> <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em>. XXXX XXXX is a client of ours, and we are going to be representing them in future legal proceedings."]},"sort":[15.170105,"11167960"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11472646","_score":14.894106,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"These are the kinds of emails I'm receiving : From : XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : Fri, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX Subject : To : Dear Customer, We are still waiting for your payment information. \n\nKindly email us your payment information ASAP. \n\n\nThank You. \n\n\nFrom : Administrative Recovery XXXX Date : Thu, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX Subject : Update Regarding Your Due Debt/UNPAID To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nTotal Outstanding : - {$1100.00} Dear : City : XXXX XXXX State : Nevada Zip : XXXX As we didn't receive your payment so, we are going to file this case on Monday at your district courthouse, to know the courthouse kindly visit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with your zip code. You will be served with a notice to appear at your district courthouse in next XXXX business days. \n\nWe are very sorry to say that you are going to be legally prosecuted in the Court House within seven days. Your SSN is put on hold by the US Government, so before the legal charges get really serious against you, we are notifying you about these legal charges. But as we were not able to reach you so we are sending you a final notification Email. Your and since its a legal matter you will need our help, so call us right now to make a payment and freeze down this case. \n\nTotal Outstanding Balance : - {$1100.00} Loan Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAS YOU ARE A DEFAULTER ON THIS CREDIT, UNITED LEGAL INVESTIGATION BUREAU HAS STATED THREE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU AND THEY ARE : ( 1 ) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL BANKING REGULATION ( 2 ) COLLATERAL CHECK FRAUD ( 3 ) THEFT BY DECEPTION Now, this means a few things for you. If you are under any state probation or payroll we need you to inform your reporting officer or manager about what you have done in the past and what would be the consequences once the case has been downloaded and executed in your name. If we do not hear from you within 48 hours of the date on this letter, we will be compelled to seek legal representation from our in-house attorney. We reserve the right to begin litigation for intent to commit wire fraud under the pretense of refusing to repay a debt committed to, by use of the internet. In addition we reserve the right to seek recovery for the balance due, as well as legal fees and any court cost incurred. \n\nThe Factual Basis for the complaints is as follows : You accepted to return the funds from this aforementioned advancement as per contract. \n\nAnd as per the agreement the funds have yet to be returned and the collateral has proven to be null that is to say of no value. \n\nIf you want to resolve this matter then reply back immediately during working hours ( Monday to Friday XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX EST ). \n\nNOTE : THIS CASE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION OF CREDIT BUREAU AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ( FTC ) Dear Debtor, Fraudulent customers like you don't deserve any type of sympathy from the company side. \n\nSent you lots of emails but you did not respond to any of our emails.\n\nYou can't even imagine what legal consequences you will be facing. You might lose all your money at once and your credit report will be thrashed, your bank account will be frozen and your current Employer should also get notified, you might lose your job also.\n\nNow it's up to you to settle your case file outside the courthouse, else by tomorrow the case will be downloaded and you will be sent court summons to your postal address.\n\nWe apologize for using these harsh languages but you have forced us to use these languages. \n\nIf you cooperate with us, we can resolve it out of the courthouse. \n\nKindly get back to us ASAP. \n\n\nBest Regards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-10T16:55:27.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"89015","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11472646","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCF Intermediate Holdings LLC","date_received":"2025-01-10T16:40:07.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["AS YOU ARE A DEFAULTER ON THIS CREDIT, UNITED LEGAL <em>INVESTIGATION</em> <em>BUREAU</em> HAS <em>STATED</em> <em>THREE</em> <em>SERIOUS</em> <em>ALLEGATIONS</em> <em>AGAINST</em> YOU AND THEY ARE : ( 1 ) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL BANKING REGULATION ( 2 ) COLLATERAL CHECK FRAUD ( 3 ) THEFT BY DECEPTION Now, this means a few things for you."]},"sort":[14.894106,"11472646"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6161627","_score":13.9920025,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","complaint_what_happened":"Hello XXXX Case No : XXXX After receiving this email, we will issue a legal warrant on your name within next couple of hours, so before you do anything read this email very carefully and respond back early as possible. \n\nYou are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed against you for three serious allegations. Speedy Cash is a client of ours, and we are going to be representing them in future legal proceedings. \n\nThe charges with Speedy Cash pressed on you are : 1 ) Violation of Federal Banking Regulation 2 ) Collateral Check Fraud 3 ) Theft by Deception The affidavit states that XXXX XXXX was monitored online using the e-mail address XXXX, social security number XXXX, date of birth XX/XX/1990, driver 's license XXXX, driver 's license sate TX, XXXX address XXXX, address TX XXXX XXXX which are in order to solicit funds from a restitution which is owned and operated by the Speedy Cash, who owns and operates more than XXXX online cash websites, web portals and many of the sub lenders are working for them ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Speedy Cash, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The funds were successfully transferred into your bank account utilizing an interstate EFT which stands for electronic funds transfer.\n\nBasically, all the payday loan companies and payday loan store in the state of PA working under my client which is Speedy cash Inc.\n\nWhen the creditor attempted to extract the funds back from your account as a repayment, at that time 6 EFTs were returned back constituting worthless electronic checks. So, as of now rather than chasing you for money the creditor have simply decided to write this money as a loss, as well as declared to be stolen, and they pressed charges against you. \n\nNow the affidavit is taken by FDCPA law that means Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under Section 9 Chapter 19.\n\nNow, this means just two things for you : 1. ) If you are on any state supervised probation on payroll, then you will need to intimate to the officer about this case. \n\n2. ) If you have any prior convictions, including but not limited to worthless check, grand theft or money laundering, so please be aware that they shall handle this case as a habitual offense as your state is zero tolerance state.\n\nThis is also to inform you that the creditor has all the rights and authorities to inform your employer about this case and what will be the results and consequences comes once this case is downloaded and executed with the judgments against you, it is because you have kept your employers name as a security and also as an additional security two more names were used.\n\nFinally, you have the right to hire an attorney, if you have one or if you can not afford one, then one shall be appointed to you. But please make sure that you have someone to help you out regarding this case because once this case is downloaded and executed with judgments against you and if you're found guilty under the bench of jury then you have to bear the court charges as a penalty and the Amount is {$8300.00} excluding your bail charges, your attorney charges and the due amount pending on your name. \n\nFinally, your name and Social Security Information would be reported to the three major credit bureaus of the USA such as, XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) XXXX Ultimately it would be affecting your XXXX scores by XXXX negative points and your social security number would be black listed, and you would also never be eligible for all the government benefits and entities. \nAccording to the orders of the courthouse, the State Investigation Department Officers will deliver all the legal documents to your current employer and that can risk your current job and once the judge opens your case for execution legally tomorrow, then these charges will be reflecting on your Credit Reports because of which it will be very difficult for you to get a new job in the future.\n\nFinally, this case is going to be downloaded in your State County Court and your Local County Sheriff department Monday at XXXX XXXX as per your State Standard Time and after then you will be forced to resolve this case legally by facing all the legal problems and spending money on your attorney as fees, case execution charges, legal penalties, bail charges, paper development charges on the top of the due amount that you owe from your creditor, that is {$1100.00}. \n\nIf you are willing to settle it out of the court, you can surely respond positively today itself. We can only accept your full payment today also there is no negotiation and there are no payment planes available as the issue at hand is extremely time sensitive. \n\nSo kindly respond to this email or call on ( XXXX ) XXXX to resolve this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX ( Senior Investigator at FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ) ( XXXX ) XXXX -- Thanks & regards, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-10T19:40:42.000Z","issue":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","sub_product":"Payday loan","zip_code":"77584","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6161627","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCF Intermediate Holdings LLC","date_received":"2022-11-03T22:34:35.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed <em>against</em> you for <em>three</em> <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em>. Speedy Cash is a client of ours, and we are going to be representing them in future legal proceedings."]},"sort":[13.9920025,"6161627"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7211376","_score":12.681485,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I received the following email from XXXX on XX/XX/2023 at XXXX XXXX  EDT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Outstanding Balance {$2400.00} Offer In Compromise {$2400.00} TODAY % Debt Reduction Scheme 2.44 % Waiver | % Saved {$60.00} Case Id : XXXX Debtor : XXXX XXXX You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed against you for three serious allegations. \n\nThe charges pressed against you by XXXX XXXX XXXX are as follows : 1. Violation of Federal Banking Regulations. \n2. Breach of contract with the loan company. \nXXXX. Theft by Deception. \n\nThe affidavit states that XXXX XXXX was monitored online or offline using the email address and solicited funds. These funds are owned and operated by XXXX XXXX, which owns and operates more than 350 online websites, XXXX offline cash stores, web portals, and all of the sub-lenders. \n\nAll the loan companies working under XXXX XXXX XXXX. are XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 ). So, it doesn't matter from which website or store you took out this loan ; the main lender has the right to file a complaint and recover the outstanding balance in the courthouse. \n\nWhen the creditor attempted to retrieve the funds as repayment, you didn't pay your monthly installment on time. As of now, instead of pursuing you for the money, the creditor has decided to write off this amount as a loss and declare it stolen, pressing charges against you. \n\nNow, the affidavit is taken under the FDCPA law, which stands for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, under Section 9, Chapter 19. \n\nThis implies two things for you : 1. If you are on any state-supervised probation or payroll, you need to inform the officer about this case. \n2. If you have any prior convictions, including but not limited to worthless checks, grand theft, or money laundering, please be aware that they will handle this case as a habitual offense, as your state has a zero-tolerance policy. \n\nThis is also to inform you that the creditor has all the rights and authority to inform your employer about this case and the potential consequences once this case is downloaded and executed with judgments against you. It is because you have listed your employer 's name as security, and two additional names were used as additional security. \n\nFinally, you have the right to hire an attorney. If you can not afford one, then one will be appointed to you. However, please make sure that you have someone to help you regarding this case because once this case is downloaded and executed with judgments against you, and if you are found guilty by a jury, you will have to bear the court charges as a penalty. The amount is {$18000.00}, excluding your bail charges, attorney charges, and the pending amount in your name. \n\nFurthermore, your name and Social Security Information will be reported to the three major credit bureaus in the USA, namely : 1. XXXX 2. TransUnion LLC 3. XXXX  Ultimately, this will affect your FICO scores negatively by XXXX points, and your Social Security number will be blacklisted. Additionally, you will not be eligible for any government benefits and entities. \n\nAccording to the orders of the courthouse, the State Investigation Department Officers will deliver all the legal documents to your current employer. This can risk your current job, and once the judge legally opens your execution case tomorrow, these charges will be reflected on your Credit Reports, making it very difficult for you to find a new job in the future. \n\nFinally, this case will be filed with your State County Court and your XXXX County Sheriff 's Department tomorrow at XXXX XXXX, as per your State Standard Time. After that, you will be forced to resolve this case legally by facing all the legal problems and spending money on your attorney 's fees, case execution charges, legal penalties, bail charges, and paper development charges, in addition to the due amount that you owe to your creditor, which is {$2400.00}. \n\nYou can apply for an Offer In Compromise ( OIC ) and may choose from the payment arrangement options mentioned below : i ) You can clear this debt by paying {$2400.00} today, deducing daily interest, as an ( OIC ) Offer in Compromise. \nii ) You can submit the settlement balance of {$2400.00} in payments ( {$610.00} x 4 installments ) starting from today to hold the warrant. \n\n\nIf you want to resolve this case outside of the court, then contact our restitution debt registrar department for your installments/settlement at XXXX. \n\nRegards, Attorney XXXX XXXX | Division Of National Debt Settlement | FDCPA | TRANS UNION Resolvement Department Confidentiality Statement & Notice : - This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination to unauthorized persons, or other use of the original message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please reply to the above-referenced sender about the error and permanently delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-06T13:14:37.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Payday loan debt","zip_code":"48858","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7211376","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-07-06T13:06:52.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I received the following email from XXXX on XX/XX/2023 at XXXX XXXX  EDT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Outstanding Balance {$2400.00} Offer In Compromise {$2400.00} TODAY % Debt Reduction Scheme 2.44 % Waiver | % Saved {$60.00} Case Id : XXXX Debtor : XXXX XXXX You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed <em>against</em> you for <em>three</em> <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em>. \n\nThe charges pressed <em>against</em> you by XXXX XXXX XXXX are as follows : 1. Violation of Federal Banking Regulations. \n2."]},"sort":[12.681485,"7211376"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17472062","_score":12.149326,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dispute of Inaccurate Information and Demand for Immediate Deletion Under Consumer Protection Laws I am writing to formally dispute certain items on my credit report that I believe are being reported inaccurately and in violation of state and federal laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nThe collection accounts reported against me, as outlined below, appear to violate my rights under these consumer protection laws. Therefore, I demand the immediate deletion of the following items from my credit report due to the lack of substantiated and verifiable documentation. \nAccount that are in question are as follow : 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 I am disputing the XXXX  XXXX - XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  - XXXX, XXXX  XXXX - XXXX, XXXX  XXXX - XXXX appearing on my Equifax, Experian XXXX and TransUnion reports. XXXX XXXX is reporting inconsistent dates of first delinquency and balances across the three bureaus, violating FCRA 607 ( b ).\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), I have the right to verification. XXXX XXXX has failed to provide a signed agreement or complete payment history. Per 15USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), unverifiable information must be deleted. Please remove this account immediately.\n\nAdditionally, I bring attention to serious public and legal concerns related to XXXX XXXX 's conduct : A {$420.00} million settlement was proposed in XX/XX/XXXX, with {$300.00} million allocated for lost interest and {$120.00} million for ongoing consumer harm. \nThe New York Attorney General also sued XXXX  XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for bait-and-switch marketing practices that cost consumers millions in unrealized savings. \nThese lawsuits indicate a pattern of systemic deception and consumer harm that raises further doubt about the integrity of XXXX XXXX  credit reporting practices. \nGiven these serious and ongoing legal issues, I am formally requesting the permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX account from all three credit bureaus. If this inaccurate and unverifiable account is not removed, I will explore legal action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nTo summarize : 1 of 12 1. The account contains inconsistent and unverifiable reporting across the three bureaus. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX has failed to provide a signed contract or full payment history. \n3. The company is currently involved in multiple federal and state lawsuits over deceptive practices.\n\n4. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ), and 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), this account qualifies for immediate deletion. Failure to act will result in further complaints to the CFPB, FTC, State Attorney General, and initiation of legal proceedings. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter This letter serves as notice that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX # ) is reporting inaccurate late payment information to Experian. The account reflects XXXX  days late for XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX  days late for XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. This pattern of reporting violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to report complete and accurate information, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act 1681i ( a ), which mandates reinvestigation and correction of disputed data. Late payments must be reported in a progressive sequence ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  days late ), not repeating the same status over consecutive months. Due to repeated disputes without correction, this constitutes continued reporting of false data and noncompliance with federal law. I am therefore requesting permanent removal of this inaccurate account information. Failure to correct and delete this data will result in legal action for willful noncompliance under the FCRA, subject to damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \nThis correspondence serves as a formal dispute regarding multiple XXXX  XXXX accounts XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) all of which are reporting inaccurate and inconsistent late payment information on my credit report. The reporting patterns violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to provide accurate and complete information, and 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires reinvestigation and correction of any disputed data.\n\nThese accounts reflect repeated late statuses that are not reported in the proper progression ( 30, 60, 90, 120 days ), which misrepresents my payment history and damages my credit standing. In addition, these accounts were previously deleted and later reinserted without proper written notification within five business days, a direct violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nI have made several previous requests for correction and deletion of these inaccuracies, but they remain unresolved. Therefore, I am requesting permanent removal of these accounts from all credit bureaus. If these inaccurate items are not removed within 10 days, I will pursue arbitration and legal action against XXXX XXXX and all three credit reporting agencies for continued noncompliance, negligent and willful reporting of false information, and reinsertion without required notice, as permitted under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\nThese accounts are causing direct and measurable harm by preventing me from obtaining mortgage approval and purchasing a home, which further supports my claim for damages under federal law.\n\nINQUIRIES : Under FCRA Section 1681i, I request that you investigate these disputed items and correct or remove them within 30 days of receiving this\nletter. If you are unable to substantiate these entries with proper verification and supporting documentation, I demand that these items be immediately deleted from my credit report.\n\nFurther, per FDCPA Section 809, debt collectors must provide full validation and verification of any debt upon request. If you can not provide such verification for the disputed accounts, you are prohibited from reporting them on my credit report.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) states that if a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that they refuse to pay a debt, the collector must cease all further communication, except to notify the consumer of specific actions, such as filing a lawsuit. \nAdditionally, I want to emphasize the legal implications of failing to comply with these laws. I will impose a {$1000.00} fine for each inaccurate or unverified claim you continue to report, as permitted under applicable consumer protection laws. \nIf these items are not removed immediately, I will pursue litigation to protect my rights. Legal precedents, such as XXXX v. TransUnion LLC and XXXX v. F.D.I.C., show that consumers have successfully sued credit bureaus for reporting inaccurate information, and I will not hesitate to do the same if my rights are violated further. \nThe FCRA mandates that all information reported on consumer credit reports must be complete, accurate, and verifiable. If any data is disputed, it must be proven by the reporting agency to be correct and substantiated. Your failure to properly verify these reports constitutes a violation of FCRA Section 1681i, and I demand the immediate deletion of these items from my credit report.\n\nI do not grant you the authority to report any claims against me without adequate compliance with all applicable federal and state laws. Should you continue to report inaccurate or unverified claims, you will be subject to a {$1000.00} fine for each violation, as well as potential legal action to recover any damages caused by the unlawful reporting. \nFurthermore, as required by common law, you must demonstrate the ability and willingness to verify and validate every aspect of the allegations being reported. Any failure to do so will result in legal action to remove the claims and recover damages","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-24T20:04:39.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30080","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17472062","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-24T20:04:11.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Given these <em>serious</em> and ongoing legal issues, I am formally requesting the permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX account from all <em>three</em> credit <em>bureaus</em>. If this inaccurate and unverifiable account is not removed, I will explore legal action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nTo summarize : 1 of 12 1. The account contains inconsistent and unverifiable reporting across the <em>three</em> <em>bureaus</em>. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[12.149326,"17472062"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17472061","_score":12.149326,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dispute of Inaccurate Information and Demand for Immediate Deletion Under Consumer Protection Laws I am writing to formally dispute certain items on my credit report that I believe are being reported inaccurately and in violation of state and federal laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nThe collection accounts reported against me, as outlined below, appear to violate my rights under these consumer protection laws. Therefore, I demand the immediate deletion of the following items from my credit report due to the lack of substantiated and verifiable documentation. \nAccount that are in question are as follow : 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 I am disputing the XXXX  XXXX - XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  - XXXX, XXXX  XXXX - XXXX, XXXX  XXXX - XXXX appearing on my Equifax, Experian XXXX and TransUnion reports. XXXX XXXX is reporting inconsistent dates of first delinquency and balances across the three bureaus, violating FCRA 607 ( b ).\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), I have the right to verification. XXXX XXXX has failed to provide a signed agreement or complete payment history. Per 15USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), unverifiable information must be deleted. Please remove this account immediately.\n\nAdditionally, I bring attention to serious public and legal concerns related to XXXX XXXX 's conduct : A {$420.00} million settlement was proposed in XX/XX/XXXX, with {$300.00} million allocated for lost interest and {$120.00} million for ongoing consumer harm. \nThe New York Attorney General also sued XXXX  XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for bait-and-switch marketing practices that cost consumers millions in unrealized savings. \nThese lawsuits indicate a pattern of systemic deception and consumer harm that raises further doubt about the integrity of XXXX XXXX  credit reporting practices. \nGiven these serious and ongoing legal issues, I am formally requesting the permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX account from all three credit bureaus. If this inaccurate and unverifiable account is not removed, I will explore legal action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nTo summarize : 1 of 12 1. The account contains inconsistent and unverifiable reporting across the three bureaus. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX has failed to provide a signed contract or full payment history. \n3. The company is currently involved in multiple federal and state lawsuits over deceptive practices.\n\n4. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ), and 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), this account qualifies for immediate deletion. Failure to act will result in further complaints to the CFPB, FTC, State Attorney General, and initiation of legal proceedings. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter This letter serves as notice that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX # ) is reporting inaccurate late payment information to Experian. The account reflects XXXX  days late for XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX  days late for XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. This pattern of reporting violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to report complete and accurate information, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act 1681i ( a ), which mandates reinvestigation and correction of disputed data. Late payments must be reported in a progressive sequence ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  days late ), not repeating the same status over consecutive months. Due to repeated disputes without correction, this constitutes continued reporting of false data and noncompliance with federal law. I am therefore requesting permanent removal of this inaccurate account information. Failure to correct and delete this data will result in legal action for willful noncompliance under the FCRA, subject to damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \nThis correspondence serves as a formal dispute regarding multiple XXXX  XXXX accounts XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) all of which are reporting inaccurate and inconsistent late payment information on my credit report. The reporting patterns violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to provide accurate and complete information, and 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires reinvestigation and correction of any disputed data.\n\nThese accounts reflect repeated late statuses that are not reported in the proper progression ( 30, 60, 90, 120 days ), which misrepresents my payment history and damages my credit standing. In addition, these accounts were previously deleted and later reinserted without proper written notification within five business days, a direct violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nI have made several previous requests for correction and deletion of these inaccuracies, but they remain unresolved. Therefore, I am requesting permanent removal of these accounts from all credit bureaus. If these inaccurate items are not removed within 10 days, I will pursue arbitration and legal action against XXXX XXXX and all three credit reporting agencies for continued noncompliance, negligent and willful reporting of false information, and reinsertion without required notice, as permitted under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\nThese accounts are causing direct and measurable harm by preventing me from obtaining mortgage approval and purchasing a home, which further supports my claim for damages under federal law.\n\nINQUIRIES : Under FCRA Section 1681i, I request that you investigate these disputed items and correct or remove them within 30 days of receiving this\nletter. If you are unable to substantiate these entries with proper verification and supporting documentation, I demand that these items be immediately deleted from my credit report.\n\nFurther, per FDCPA Section 809, debt collectors must provide full validation and verification of any debt upon request. If you can not provide such verification for the disputed accounts, you are prohibited from reporting them on my credit report.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) states that if a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that they refuse to pay a debt, the collector must cease all further communication, except to notify the consumer of specific actions, such as filing a lawsuit. \nAdditionally, I want to emphasize the legal implications of failing to comply with these laws. I will impose a {$1000.00} fine for each inaccurate or unverified claim you continue to report, as permitted under applicable consumer protection laws. \nIf these items are not removed immediately, I will pursue litigation to protect my rights. Legal precedents, such as XXXX v. TransUnion LLC and XXXX v. F.D.I.C., show that consumers have successfully sued credit bureaus for reporting inaccurate information, and I will not hesitate to do the same if my rights are violated further. \nThe FCRA mandates that all information reported on consumer credit reports must be complete, accurate, and verifiable. If any data is disputed, it must be proven by the reporting agency to be correct and substantiated. Your failure to properly verify these reports constitutes a violation of FCRA Section 1681i, and I demand the immediate deletion of these items from my credit report.\n\nI do not grant you the authority to report any claims against me without adequate compliance with all applicable federal and state laws. Should you continue to report inaccurate or unverified claims, you will be subject to a {$1000.00} fine for each violation, as well as potential legal action to recover any damages caused by the unlawful reporting. \nFurthermore, as required by common law, you must demonstrate the ability and willingness to verify and validate every aspect of the allegations being reported. Any failure to do so will result in legal action to remove the claims and recover damages","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-24T20:04:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30080","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17472061","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-24T20:04:11.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Given these <em>serious</em> and ongoing legal issues, I am formally requesting the permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX account from all <em>three</em> credit <em>bureaus</em>. If this inaccurate and unverifiable account is not removed, I will explore legal action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nTo summarize : 1 of 12 1. The account contains inconsistent and unverifiable reporting across the <em>three</em> <em>bureaus</em>. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[12.149326,"17472061"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17472060","_score":12.147476,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dispute of Inaccurate Information and Demand for Immediate Deletion Under Consumer Protection Laws I am writing to formally dispute certain items on my credit report that I believe are being reported inaccurately and in violation of state and federal laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nThe collection accounts reported against me, as outlined below, appear to violate my rights under these consumer protection laws. Therefore, I demand the immediate deletion of the following items from my credit report due to the lack of substantiated and verifiable documentation. \nAccount that are in question are as follow : 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 I am disputing the XXXX  XXXX - XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  - XXXX, XXXX  XXXX - XXXX, XXXX  XXXX - XXXX appearing on my Equifax, Experian XXXX and TransUnion reports. XXXX XXXX is reporting inconsistent dates of first delinquency and balances across the three bureaus, violating FCRA 607 ( b ).\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), I have the right to verification. XXXX XXXX has failed to provide a signed agreement or complete payment history. Per 15USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), unverifiable information must be deleted. Please remove this account immediately.\n\nAdditionally, I bring attention to serious public and legal concerns related to XXXX XXXX 's conduct : A {$420.00} million settlement was proposed in XX/XX/XXXX, with {$300.00} million allocated for lost interest and {$120.00} million for ongoing consumer harm. \nThe New York Attorney General also sued XXXX  XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for bait-and-switch marketing practices that cost consumers millions in unrealized savings. \nThese lawsuits indicate a pattern of systemic deception and consumer harm that raises further doubt about the integrity of XXXX XXXX  credit reporting practices. \nGiven these serious and ongoing legal issues, I am formally requesting the permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX account from all three credit bureaus. If this inaccurate and unverifiable account is not removed, I will explore legal action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nTo summarize : 1 of 12 1. The account contains inconsistent and unverifiable reporting across the three bureaus. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX has failed to provide a signed contract or full payment history. \n3. The company is currently involved in multiple federal and state lawsuits over deceptive practices.\n\n4. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ), and 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), this account qualifies for immediate deletion. Failure to act will result in further complaints to the CFPB, FTC, State Attorney General, and initiation of legal proceedings. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter This letter serves as notice that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX # ) is reporting inaccurate late payment information to Experian. The account reflects XXXX  days late for XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX  days late for XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. This pattern of reporting violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to report complete and accurate information, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act 1681i ( a ), which mandates reinvestigation and correction of disputed data. Late payments must be reported in a progressive sequence ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  days late ), not repeating the same status over consecutive months. Due to repeated disputes without correction, this constitutes continued reporting of false data and noncompliance with federal law. I am therefore requesting permanent removal of this inaccurate account information. Failure to correct and delete this data will result in legal action for willful noncompliance under the FCRA, subject to damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \nThis correspondence serves as a formal dispute regarding multiple XXXX  XXXX accounts XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) all of which are reporting inaccurate and inconsistent late payment information on my credit report. The reporting patterns violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to provide accurate and complete information, and 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires reinvestigation and correction of any disputed data.\n\nThese accounts reflect repeated late statuses that are not reported in the proper progression ( 30, 60, 90, 120 days ), which misrepresents my payment history and damages my credit standing. In addition, these accounts were previously deleted and later reinserted without proper written notification within five business days, a direct violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).\n\nI have made several previous requests for correction and deletion of these inaccuracies, but they remain unresolved. Therefore, I am requesting permanent removal of these accounts from all credit bureaus. If these inaccurate items are not removed within 10 days, I will pursue arbitration and legal action against XXXX XXXX and all three credit reporting agencies for continued noncompliance, negligent and willful reporting of false information, and reinsertion without required notice, as permitted under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.\n\nThese accounts are causing direct and measurable harm by preventing me from obtaining mortgage approval and purchasing a home, which further supports my claim for damages under federal law.\n\nINQUIRIES : Under FCRA Section 1681i, I request that you investigate these disputed items and correct or remove them within 30 days of receiving this\nletter. If you are unable to substantiate these entries with proper verification and supporting documentation, I demand that these items be immediately deleted from my credit report.\n\nFurther, per FDCPA Section 809, debt collectors must provide full validation and verification of any debt upon request. If you can not provide such verification for the disputed accounts, you are prohibited from reporting them on my credit report.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) states that if a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that they refuse to pay a debt, the collector must cease all further communication, except to notify the consumer of specific actions, such as filing a lawsuit. \nAdditionally, I want to emphasize the legal implications of failing to comply with these laws. I will impose a {$1000.00} fine for each inaccurate or unverified claim you continue to report, as permitted under applicable consumer protection laws. \nIf these items are not removed immediately, I will pursue litigation to protect my rights. Legal precedents, such as XXXX v. TransUnion LLC and XXXX v. F.D.I.C., show that consumers have successfully sued credit bureaus for reporting inaccurate information, and I will not hesitate to do the same if my rights are violated further. \nThe FCRA mandates that all information reported on consumer credit reports must be complete, accurate, and verifiable. If any data is disputed, it must be proven by the reporting agency to be correct and substantiated. Your failure to properly verify these reports constitutes a violation of FCRA Section 1681i, and I demand the immediate deletion of these items from my credit report.\n\nI do not grant you the authority to report any claims against me without adequate compliance with all applicable federal and state laws. Should you continue to report inaccurate or unverified claims, you will be subject to a {$1000.00} fine for each violation, as well as potential legal action to recover any damages caused by the unlawful reporting. \nFurthermore, as required by common law, you must demonstrate the ability and willingness to verify and validate every aspect of the allegations being reported. Any failure to do so will result in legal action to remove the claims and recover damages","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-24T20:04:39.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30080","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17472060","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-24T19:28:25.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Given these <em>serious</em> and ongoing legal issues, I am formally requesting the permanent deletion of this XXXX XXXX account from all <em>three</em> credit <em>bureaus</em>. If this inaccurate and unverifiable account is not removed, I will explore legal action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nTo summarize : 1 of 12 1. The account contains inconsistent and unverifiable reporting across the <em>three</em> <em>bureaus</em>. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[12.147476,"17472060"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13559754","_score":11.893837,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( \" Experian '' ) for its persistent and unlawful failure to properly investigate consumer disputes, including my own, resulting in the continued presence of inaccurate information on my credit report. These actions constitute violations of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and demonstrate a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices.\n\nFor approximately ten years, I have been a victim of Experian 's flawed policies and inadequate investigation procedures. I have repeatedly attempted to correct errors on my credit file and have requested that Experian contact my credit grantors to verify disputed information. Despite these efforts, Experian has consistently failed to conduct meaningful investigations, leading to my Experian credit report often reflecting a lower standing compared to those from the other two major credit reporting agencies.\n\nMy direct experiences with Experian 's dispute process highlight their systemic failures : Initial Dispute Met with Superficial Verification : Upon submitting a dispute clearly outlining inaccuracies on my report, Experian responded by stating that the information was simply \" verified. '' This response lacked any detail about the investigative process and suggests an uncritical acceptance of the furnisher 's initial data, rather than a thorough review as mandated by the FCRA.\n\nEvasion When Investigative Details Demanded : When I subsequently demanded that Experian provide details of the investigative measures taken to \" verify '' the disputed information, they employed a stalling tactic. Experian claimed my account could not be verified, and therefore, they could not disclose any investigative steps or presumably conduct a proper investigation in the first place. This directly contradicts their earlier claim of having \" verified '' the information and serves as a clear obstruction to my rights.\n\nRejection of Authenticated Identity : In a further attempt to ensure my dispute was processed, I sent a third communication which included a copy of my state-issued ID ( matching my current address on file with Experian ) and took the extraordinary step of having the letter notarized to authenticate my identity. Shockingly, this was met with what appeared to be an automated email stating that no action could be taken because the dispute \" did not appear to come from me. '' This absurd response, in the face of irrefutable proof of identity, demonstrates that Experian is not conducting proper, good-faith investigations and is instead relying on processes designed to frustrate consumer rights.\n\nThese personal experiences are clear evidence that no one at Experian is conducting a proper or reasonable investigation into consumer files, including my own.\n\nI am alleging that I have been subjected to Experian 's years-long pattern of violating consumer rights. I wish for this complaint to be recognized and, where applicable, for my experience to be considered in relation to any ongoing or future class action lawsuits against Experian for its unlawful acts.\n\nExperian has unlawfully failed to properly investigate consumer disputes. I allege that Experian does not take sufficient steps to intake, process, investigate, and notify consumers about consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports. As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has noted, inaccurate or false information on consumer reports can threaten consumers ' access to credit, employment, and housing.\n\nThe CFPB has previously stated that when consumers disputed errors on their credit reports, \" Experian conducted sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law. '' My experiences, detailed above, are a direct reflection of these \" sham investigations. '' Credit reporting errors can have serious consequences for a family 's finances, and it is critical that credit reporting giants like Experian follow the law.\n\nExperian, one of the nation 's three largest credit reporting conglomerates, maintains information on most families in America. It markets, advertises, sells, offers, and provides credit scores, credit reports, credit monitoring, and other related products. Information in consumer reports is provided to Experian by data furnishers, including banks, credit card companies, and debt collectors. Experian then sells these consumer reports to creditors and businesses.\n\nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) unequivocally requires that consumer reporting agencies take steps to ensure consumer reports are accurate and to conduct reasonable investigations of information disputed by consumers. The FCRA provides multiple ways for individuals to dispute inaccurate information, including by contacting consumer reporting agencies directly. The FCRA also mandates specific procedures before reinserting information previously removed due to a dispute.\n\nThe CFPB has alleged that Experian has violated the FCRAs requirements for handling consumer disputes in numerous ways. Specifically, the CFPBs allegations resonate with my own experiences, asserting that Experian harms consumers by : Conducting sham investigations that fail to properly address consumer disputes : My experience shows that Experian uses faulty intake procedures ( e.g., rejecting notarized identification ) and does not accurately convey or act upon all relevant information about disputes. Experian routinely and uncritically accepts the original furnishers response, as evidenced by their \" verified '' claim without substantial investigation, even when circumstances ( like my persistent disputes and provision of identity verification ) should trigger a more thorough review. The notices I received from Experian failed to inform me of any meaningful investigation results and were instead confusing, contradictory, and obstructive.\n\nImproperly reinserting inaccurate information on consumer reports ( if applicable, or a general concern about their processes ) : While not explicitly detailed in my immediate points above, Experian 's documented failure to implement basic matching tools that prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of reinsertion by a new furnisher of a previously deleted tradeline is a grave concern. Their system allows inaccurate information to reappear, compounding consumer frustration.\n\nIn addition to violating FCRA requirements, Experians faulty dispute intake procedures, its failure to provide furnishers with consumer-submitted documentation ( or to properly consider it themselves ), its uncritical deference to furnishers responses, and its failure to prevent improper tradeline reinsertions also constitute violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Acts ( CFPA ) prohibition on unfair acts or practices.\n\nDemands : I demand that Experian immediately : Conduct a thorough, transparent, and verifiable investigation into the inaccuracies previously disputed on my credit report, considering all information I have provided.\n\nProvide me with a detailed written description of the steps taken in this new investigation.\n\nRemove all inaccurately reported information from my credit file.\n\nImplement procedures to ensure that its handling of consumer disputes, including mine, complies fully with the FCRA and CFPA.\n\nI am seeking to stop Experian 's unlawful conduct, to receive redress for the harm caused by their actions, and for appropriate penalties to be levied against them for their systemic disregard of consumer rights. I intend to pursue all available legal remedies if this matter is not resolved satisfactorily.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-16T18:47:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60620","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13559754","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-16T18:27:10.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The CFPB has previously <em>stated</em> that when consumers disputed errors on their credit reports, \" Experian conducted sham <em>investigations</em> rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law. '' My experiences, detailed above, are a direct reflection of these \" sham <em>investigations</em>. '' Credit reporting errors can have <em>serious</em> consequences for a family 's finances, and it is critical that credit reporting giants like Experian follow the law."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[11.893837,"13559754"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3413267","_score":11.840006,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Here is the letter I received from SpeedyCash. \n\nAttention, After numerous attempts to reach you we haven't received any payment or any positive feedback from your side, as you are not paying your seriousness on this account which means that you are trying to run away from the situation and repeating the same activity which you did before with the loan company. We tried our best to help you on this matter but you are taking this matter lightly. \n\nAccount Status : WARRANT IS ACTIVE FOR SEARCH AND SEIZE ( Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. ) You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed against you for three serious allegations.\n\nThe charges with Speedy Cash Inc., pressed on you are 1 ) Violation of Federal Banking Regulation 2 ) Breach of contract with loan the company 3 ) Theft by Deception IF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE CASE OUTSIDE OF COURT THEN CONTACT TO RESTITUTION ATTORNEY : mailto :  XXXX Basically all the loan companies working under Speedy cash Inc. are ( 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, Speedy Cash, 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 ) So, it doesnt matter from which website or from which store you taken out this loan main lender have a rights that they can file complain and recover outstanding balance in the court house. \n\nWhen the creditor attempted to extract the funds back from you as a repayment, at that time you didnt pay your monthly installment on time. So, as of now rather than chasing you for money the creditor have simply decided to write this money as a loss, as well as declared to be stolen and they pressed charges against you. \n\n\nNow the affidavit is taken by FDCPA law that means Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under Section 9 Chapter 19.\n\nNow this means just two things for you : 1. ) If you are on any state supervised probation on payroll, then you will need to intimate the officer about this case. \n2. ) If you have any prior convictions including but not limited to worthless check, grand theft or money laundering, so please be aware that they shall handle this case as a habitual offense as your state is zero tolerance state. \n\nThis is also to inform you that the creditor has all the rights and authorities to inform your employer about this case and what will be the results and consequences comes once this case is downloaded and executed with the judgments against you, it is because you have kept your employers name as a security and also as an additional security two more names were used.\n\nFinally, you have the right to hire an attorney, if you have one or if you can not afford one then one shall be appointed to you. But please make sure that you have someone to help you out regarding this case because once this case is downloaded and executed with judgments against you and if you found guilty under the bench of jury then you have to bear the court charges as a penalty and the Amount is {$18000.00} excluding your bail charges, your attorney charges and the due amount pending on your name. \n\nFinally, your name and Social Security Information would be reported to the three major credit bureaus of USA such as 1. ) XXXX 2. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX 3. ) XXXX Ultimately, it would be affecting your FICO scores by 285 negative points and your social security number would be black listed and you would also never be eligible for all the government benefits and entities.\n\nAccording to the orders of the court house the State Investigation Department Officers will deliver all the legal documents to your current employer and that can risk your current job and once the judge opens your case for execution legally tomorrow then these charges will be reflecting on your Credit Reports because of which it will be very difficult for you to get a new job in future.\n\nIF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE CASE OUTSIDE OF COURT THEN CONTACT TO RESTITUTION ATTORNEY : mailto :  XXXX \" Debtor ( You ) has been declared as a guilty by Authorized Law Enforcement Department, Seizure Warrant has been activated under 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ) of the FDCPA Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a  copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken. \nThe officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant, must prepare as required by law and promptly return this warrant. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3103a ( b ), I find that immediate notification may have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 ( except for delay of trial ), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be searched or seized. \n\nNote : You will be contacted by your local county authorities. XXXX XXXX XXXX Department is closing this account and declaring as a GUILTY. If we will not receive any feedback from your side, then you will be the only person who will be responsible for any consequences. \n\nNOTE : YOU STILL HAVE CHANCE TO RECTIFY THIS OUTSIDE OF COURT, FOLLOW THE RESOLVEMENT PROCEDURE BELOW IF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE CASE OUTSIDE OF COURT THEN CONTACT TO RESTITUTION ATTORNEY : mailto :  XXXX CREDITOR : Speedy Cash Group CASE NO : XXXX Regards, Restitution Head Department Of l Debt Settlement Confidentiality Statement & Notice : This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, re transmission, dissemination to unauthorized persons or other use of the original message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please reply to the above-referenced sender about the error and permanently delete this message. Thank you for your co-operation.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-22T06:04:37.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Payday loan debt","zip_code":"90034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3413267","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CURO Intermediate Holdings","date_received":"2019-10-22T01:57:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Threatened to arrest you or take you to jail if you do not pay"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account Status : WARRANT IS ACTIVE FOR SEARCH AND SEIZE ( Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. ) You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed <em>against</em> you for <em>three</em> <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em>."]},"sort":[11.840006,"3413267"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9700242","_score":10.753718,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a formal complaint against United Wholesale Mortgage / Loan Servicing ( UWM ) XXXX a company that I have found to be incredibly predatory, manipulative, and consistently failing to follow regulatory guidelines. This complaint is detailed, capturing every single issue I have experienced with UWM. \n\nFailure to Meet Response Deadlines I submitted my last mortgage mitigation application on XX/XX/XXXX. UWM failed to respond within the mandated 30-day period, a deadline they have missed not once, not twice, but three or four times previously. This repeated failure to meet the 30-day response deadline is a blatant disregard for the regulatory requirements and demonstrates their negligence. \n\nProof of Submission Included with this complaint, I have provided proof of the tracking information showing the package was shipped to UWM 's office. Additionally, the documents were uploaded electronically to their system, and I have included proof of this as well. \n\nRestrictive and Unreasonable Payment Policies Despite their failure to acknowledge my application, UWM has sent numerous notices such as payment reversals and payment reminders. \n\nThey have placed restrictive conditions on my account, refusing most payment types unless made through certified funds. This requirement forces me to mail payments or pay a {$30.00} wire fee, adding unnecessary financial strain during an already challenging time. \n\nHarassment Through Correspondence From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, UWM sent 16 threatening correspondences about foreclosure and payment sanctions, without any acknowledgment of my assistance request. This constant harassment exacerbates my distress and further complicates my ability to manage my mortgage obligations. \n\nContradictory Responses and Documentation On XX/XX/XXXX, UWM claimed my application documentation was insufficient. The next day, I received another letter, also dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating my application was complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThese contradictory statements are confusing and undermine the credibility of UWM 's processing system. \n\nUnnecessary Appraisal Valuation Despite declaring my application incomplete on XX/XX/XXXX, UWM ordered an appraisal valuation on XX/XX/XXXX. This action is illogical and suggests improper handling of my application. \n\nRejection of Payments I have made efforts to fulfill my payment obligations by sending a certified check, which UWM rejected and returned nearly two weeks later. A representative had indicated that payments would be applied to the outstanding balance once my account was in the loss mitigation department, yet this was not honored. \n\nInsurance Policy Mismanagement On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice claiming my insurance policy had expired, despite it being paid. I promptly sent proof of payment and a copy of the receipt via tracked mail, which is included with this complaint. \n\nErroneous Notices and Threats of Foreclosure XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, UWM notified me that my application was missing documents, despite prior acknowledgment of completion. On XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a notice of default, threatening foreclosure by XX/XX/XXXX if payment was not received. This tactic is consistent with their previous behavior during my COVID forbearance request, where they falsely claimed deficiencies in my application to justify issuing a notice of default. \n\nAllegations of Discrimination I believe there is a high degree of discrimination in UWM 's actions, possibly based on orientation, ethnicity, or other factors. Their scare tactics and predatory practices appear to target vulnerable individuals disproportionately, undermining the American middle class. \n\nRequest for Investigation I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) thoroughly investigates UWM 's actions and reviews their history of complaints, including : CFPB Complaint No. XXXX CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Their repeated failures, contradictory statements, and predatory practices warrant serious scrutiny and regulatory action to prevent further harm to consumers. \n\nAdditional Details To provide more context, I will elaborate further on each of these points : Failure to Meet Response Deadlines The pattern of missed deadlines is egregious and systemic. In my case, the initial mitigation application sent on XX/XX/XXXX was just one of many instances where UWM failed to respond within the required XXXX period. Each missed deadline adds to the financial and emotional burden placed on borrowers like myself, who are already in distress. This is not an isolated incident. Over the past year, I have documented multiple instances where UWM has failed to meet response deadlines. \n\nIn each case, I have provided all required documentation promptly, yet UWM has consistently failed to acknowledge receipt or provide timely responses. This pattern of behavior indicates a systemic issue within the company, rather than a series of isolated incidents. \n\nRestrictive and Unreasonable Payment Policies The restrictions placed on my account are particularly burdensome. By refusing to accept most payment types and requiring certified funds, UWM is creating additional hurdles for borrowers who are already struggling to make their mortgage payments. The added cost of mailing certified funds or paying a {$30.00} wire fee further exacerbates the financial strain. \n\nMoreover, these restrictions seem to be applied arbitrarily. In my case, UWM refused to accept a certified check I sent, returning it nearly two weeks later. This delay not only increased the risk of late payment penalties but also added unnecessary stress and confusion. UWMs actions appear to be designed to create additional barriers for borrowers, rather than facilitating timely payments. \n\nHarassment Through Correspondence The volume of correspondence I received from UWM between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX is staggering. In just over six weeks, I received 16 separate letters, each one more threatening than the last. These correspondences included warnings of impending foreclosure, demands for payment, and notices of account restrictions. \n\nThe constant barrage of threatening letters creates an environment of fear and uncertainty. Rather than addressing my request for assistance, UWMs communications focused solely on punitive measures. This harassment adds to the emotional toll of an already stressful situation and makes it difficult for borrowers to navigate the mortgage assistance process. \n\nContradictory Responses and Documentation The contradictory responses I received from UWM highlight significant issues with their internal processes. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that my application documentation was insufficient. The very next day, I received another letter, also dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that my application was complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThese contradictory statements are confusing and undermine my confidence in UWMs ability to manage my account effectively. Such inconsistencies are not only frustrating but also indicate deeper issues within UWMs operations. It appears that different departments or employees are not communicating effectively, leading to conflicting information being sent to borrowers. \n\nThis lack of coordination adds to the complexity and confusion of the mortgage assistance process. \n\nUnnecessary Appraisal Valuation The ordering of an appraisal valuation on XX/XX/XXXX, despite my application being deemed incomplete on XX/XX/XXXX, raises serious questions about UWMs handling of my case. If my application was truly incomplete, there would be no reason to order an appraisal. This action suggests that UWM may be prematurely preparing for foreclosure, rather than genuinely assessing my eligibility for assistance. \n\nThis premature ordering of an appraisal adds to the stress and uncertainty faced by borrowers. It indicates that UWM may be more focused on moving forward with foreclosure proceedings than on providing the assistance needed to help borrowers stay in their homes. \n\nRejection of Payments Despite my efforts to fulfill my payment obligations, UWM rejected a certified check I sent and returned it nearly two weeks later. A representative had indicated that payments would be applied to the outstanding balance once my account was in the loss mitigation department, yet this was not honored. This rejection of payments is particularly troubling, as it suggests that UWM is not acting in good faith to help borrowers meet their obligations. \n\nThe rejection of payments not only increases the risk of late fees and penalties but also adds to the confusion and frustration faced by borrowers. It creates additional hurdles for those who are already struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments and undermines the trust between borrowers and servicers. \n\nInsurance Policy Mismanagement On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice claiming my insurance policy had expired, despite it being paid. I promptly sent proof of payment and a copy of the receipt via tracked mail, which is included with this complaint. This incident is just one example of UWMs mismanagement of my account. \n\nSuch mismanagement can have serious consequences, including the imposition of forced-place insurance, which is often more expensive than the borrowers own policy. It also adds to the administrative burden on borrowers, who must constantly provide proof of payment and other documentation to correct errors made by UWM. \n\nErroneous Notices and Threats of Foreclosure XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, UWM notified me that my application was missing documents, despite prior acknowledgment of completion. On XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a notice of default, threatening foreclosure by XX/XX/XXXX if payment was not received. This tactic is consistent with their previous behavior during my COVID forbearance request, where they falsely claimed deficiencies in my application to justify issuing a notice of default. \n\nThe issuance of erroneous notices and threats of foreclosure creates a climate of fear and uncertainty for borrowers. It undermines the purpose of the mortgage assistance process, which is to help borrowers stay in their homes. Instead, UWMs actions seem designed to expedite foreclosure proceedings, rather than providing the support needed to prevent them. \n\nAllegations of Discrimination I believe there is a high degree of discrimination in UWM 's actions, possibly based on orientation, ethnicity, or other factors. Their scare tactics and predatory practices appear to target vulnerable individuals disproportionately, undermining the American middle class. \n\nDiscrimination in the handling of mortgage accounts is a serious concern. It not only violates fair housing laws but also exacerbates the challenges faced by already vulnerable populations. UWMs actions appear to reflect a pattern of targeting certain borrowers for more aggressive and punitive measures, rather than providing equitable treatment to all customers. \n\nRequest for Investigation I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) thoroughly investigates UWM 's actions and reviews their history of complaints, including : CFPB Complaint No. XXXX CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Their repeated failures, contradictory statements, and predatory practices warrant serious scrutiny and regulatory action to prevent further harm to consumers. \nI urge the CFPB to consider the systemic nature of the issues I have outlined and to take appropriate action to hold UWM accountable for their actions. \n\nThis includes enforcing compliance with regulatory requirements, addressing discriminatory practices, and ensuring that borrowers are treated fairly and with respect. \n\nThank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your prompt response and to seeing meaningful action taken to address these serious concerns. \n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-03T15:12:12.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"89148","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9700242","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"United Shore Financial Services, LLC","date_received":"2024-08-03T14:20:56.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Request for <em>Investigation</em> I request that the Consumer Financial Protection <em>Bureau</em> ( CFPB ) thoroughly <em>investigates</em> UWM 's actions and reviews their history of complaints, including : CFPB Complaint No. XXXX CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Their repeated failures, contradictory statements, and predatory practices warrant <em>serious</em> scrutiny and regulatory action to prevent further harm to consumers."]},"sort":[10.753718,"9700242"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3901721","_score":10.4719925,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This a petition for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ( FCRA ) by XXXX XXXX seeking relief for Respondents widespread violations thereof. \n\n2. Despite the public availability of court records that conclusively demonstrate that certain court records in eviction cases have been dismissed, withdrawn, vacated, satisfied, or resulted in judgments for tenants, Respondent routinely fails to obtain up-to-date information pertaining to the disposition. \n\n\n3. Respondents practices harm consumers seeking residential leases by prejudicing their prospective landlords with inaccurate, adverse information. \n\nII. PARTIES 4. Petitioner XXXX XXXX ( Petitionoer or Mr. XXXX XXXX is an adult individual who resides in XXXX XXXX County, California. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was a consumer as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ). \n\n5. Respondent XXXX, XXXX ( Respondent or XXXX ) regularly conducts business in the State of California. Respondent also does business as XXXX, having acquired certain assets of XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n6. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was a person and a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) within the meanings of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( f ), respectively.\n\nIII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Respondents practices harm consumers seeking residential leases by prejudicing their prospective landlords with inaccurate, adverse information as it did for Petitioner 8. The FCRA is intended to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential and responsible manner. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) 9. Respondent is required by the FCRA to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom its reports relate. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\n10. For many years, Respondent has purchased public records information pertaining to residential eviction litigation ( eviction information ) from third-party vendors instead of retrieving the actual underlying court records themselvesor even more manageable digital representationsfor the purpose of creating and selling consumer reports to third party landlords and rental property managers. \n\n\n11. The eviction information Respondent purchases is merely a summary prepared by its vendors LexisNexis that does not include all the information or the most up-to-date information available at the courthouses or government offices where the records themselves are housed in conjunction with the day-to-day functioning of those entities. Both LexisNexis and Respondent are subject to two class action lawsuits because of the very same reporting irregularities attached herein.\n\n12. Respondent knows that its public records vendors make mistakes in the condensed, summary eviction information that it purchases for credit reporting purposes and that the information routinely does not include the most up-to-date status of the actual cases.\n\n13. Purchasing distilled, incomplete public records information was the impetus for regulatory investigations of the Big Three CRAs, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and dozens of FCRA lawsuits throughout the United States, including in this District. \n\n14. For example, in XXXX, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) noted that CRAs did not adequately oversee their public records vendors : Examiners found that the oversight of public records providers by one or more CRAs was weak and required corrective action. For example, one or more CRAs had never conducted a formal audit of their public records providers. In addition, one or more CRAs did not have defined processes to verify the accuracy of public record information provided by their public records providers. In light of such weaknesses, Supervision directed one or more CRAs to establish and implement suitable and effective oversight of public records providers. ( CFPB, Supervisory Highlights, 2.1.1 ( Summer XXXX ), available at http : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf ( last viewed XX/XX/XXXX ) 15. Further, the CFPB expressed concern about the accuracy of public records information that the CRAs imported into their consumer databases : Examiners reviewed quality control processes with respect to the accuracy of consumer reports produced by one or more CRAs and found that, with certain exceptions, there were no quality control policies and procedures to test compiled consumer reports for accuracy. While processes existed to analyze and improve the quality of incoming data, there was no post-compilation report review or sampling to test the accuracy of consumer reports. In light of these weaknesses, Supervision directed one or more CRAs to develop a plan with implementation timelines to establish quality controls that regularly assess the accuracy and integrity of the consumer reports and consumer file disclosures produced. Id. at 2.1.2.\n\n16. Other regulators, including the New York Attorney General, initiated investigations of the Big Three in part due to similar problems with the accuracy and currency of publics records information in credit reports.\n\n17. The Big Three ultimately entered into an agreement with the New York Attorney General that they took to calling the National Consumer Assistance Plan ( NCAP ). ( Settlement Agreement, In the Matter of the Investigation by XXXX XXXX XXXX, Attorney General of the State of New York, of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; and XXXX, XXXX, XXXX : //www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/CRA % 20Agreement % 20Fully % 20Executed % 203.8.15.pdf ( last viewed XX/XX/XXXX ). ) XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX, pursuant to the requirements of the settlement and the NCAP, the Big Three ceased including in credit reports civil judgment information that did not meet certain minimum standards. In practice, this meant that civil judgments disappeared entirely from consumer reports prepared by the Big Three.bSee CFPB, Quarterly Consumer Credit Trends Report, 2-3 ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/documents/6270/cfpb_consumer-credit-trends_public- records_022018.pdf ( last viewed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. \n\n19. Although the Big Three stepped back from using public records information in some of their consumer reporting products, other CRAs, like Respondent, continue to do so.\n\n20. At all times relevant to these allegations, Respondent was aware of the investigations of the CFPB and state attorneys general into the Big Threes public records practices, the NCAP, the various public records class actions pending throughout the United States, and its obligations under the FCRA.\n\n21. Nevertheless, Respondent, fully aware of the problems associated with the incomplete and inaccurate public records information purchased from vendors of such information, continues to report eviction information to potential landlords.\n\n22. The data and reports Respondent sells are used and expected to be used for multiple purposes governed by FCRA section 1681b and the information included in them bears on the credit history, credit worthiness, reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living of each respective consumer. Thus, the reports that Respondent sells about thousands of consumers each year are consumer reports. See 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ).\n\n23. Based upon a common policy and practice, Respondent regularly reports inaccurate and out-of-date eviction information pertaining to cases and judgments that have been dismissed, withdrawn, satisfied, or have resulted in a judgment for the tenant. \n\n\n24. Respondents practices not only violate the FCRA as a matter of law, they exact serious consequences on rental housing applicants and interstate commerce. Consumers who have obtained the dismissal, withdrawal of an eviction matter, satisfied an eviction judgment, or prevailed in an eviction matter are prejudiced in their ability to obtain leased housing. \n\nIV. PETITIONERS EXPERIENCE 25. At all times relevant to Petitioners allegations, information pertaining to Landlord Tenant Complaints filed in the XXXX XXXX XXXX Superior Court , including full case dockets and digital representations of all documents filed in such cases, including, but not limited to complaints, judgments, XXXX, withdrawals, and satisfactions of judgment, were publicly available. \n\n26. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff applied to rent an apartment of moderate housing as defined by the Housing Authority for City of XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX managed by XXXX XXXX XXXX in an apartment building in the XXXX XXXX area of the City of XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n27. In conjunction with his application, Respondent prepared a Rental Report about Plaintiff for a fee under the trade name XXXX. \n\n28. Upon information and belief, The XXXX passed Respondents fee along to Plaintiff as an application fee. \n\n\n29. The Rental Report contained credit information about Plaintiff that Respondent had acquired from XXXX, one  of the Big Three national credit reporting agencies. \n\n30. The Rental Report included a header labeled Landlord Tenant Court Records.  However, upon information and belief, Respondent did not conduct any independent search of relevant civil records, but rather purchased the data it included in the Rental Report from a third- party vendor namely LexisNexis Risk Solutions. \n\n31. Upon information and belief, Respondent purchased the eviction information from XXXX  after XXXX itself had stopped including public records information in its own credit reports. \n\n\n32. The first inaccurate and out-of-date item appeared, in relevant part, as follows : Landlord Tenant Court Records A landlord tenant court record does not necessarily mean that a tenant owed rent or was evicted from an apartment.\n\nDate Filed Case Type Case Number Record Source Record Vendor 8/2015 CIVIL ACTION FOR POSSESSION XXXX XXXX XXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, XXXX XXXX XXXX LexisNexis Risk Data Retrieval Services,  LLC Judgment Judgment Amount Status Amount Paid Possession Only Judgment for Plaintiff XX/XX/XXXX {$0.00} {$0.00} Defendants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Address Comments XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Plaintiff Phone # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This information was inaccurate and out-of-date because the original case number in the complaint filed against Petitioner was XXXX XXXX ; on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was reduced to judgment of dismissal but that judgment was with prejudice to named Plaintiff in that action amongst other cases as there were multiple parties. Please See stenographer notes. Respondents reflecting these updates were filed on the publicly-available case docket contemporaneously with their entry and used the wrong case number and the wrong outcome. \n\n34. Nevertheless, the Rental Report contained no reference to the vacatur of the case of the judgment dismissal with prejudice. Please See Multi Order of Dismissal 35. As of the date of the Rental Report, Respondent had failed to update the status to have XXXX XXXX XXXX decide to approve Petitioner which is predicated on the records maintained by Respondent and the accuracy thereof.\n\n36. Petitioner has sought to dispute the items via RealPages, Inc.s dispute procedure that has failed to receive and intelligible response or otherwise ignored and not processed with a boilerplate response of no investigation nor corrective action taken place.\n\nV. BASIS FOR RELIEF FIRST BASIS FOR RELEIF VIOLATION of FCRA SECTION 1681e ( b ) 37. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.\n\n38. Pursuant to sections 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA, Respondent is liable to the Petitioner for negligently and willfully failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom a consumer report relates, in violation of section 1681e ( b ). Specifically, Respondent failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of eviction information contained in tenant screening reports prepared about Petitioner hereby publishing inaccurate and outdated eviction information to their potential landlords and property managers.\n\nVI. PRAYER for RELIEF 39. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays the enter an order  granting relief to have Respondent take corrective action to remove the inaccurate information 40. Any further relief or order that the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAUX deem appropriate or just. \n\n\nDated : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX County. California. Respectfully submitted, By : /s/ XXXX XXXX ____________________________________","date_sent_to_company":"2020-10-15T22:08:12.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"904XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3901721","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2020-10-15T22:08:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Although the Big <em>Three</em> stepped back from using public records information in some of their consumer reporting products, other CRAs, like Respondent, continue to do so.\n\n20. At all times relevant to these <em>allegations</em>, Respondent was aware of the <em>investigations</em> of the CFPB and <em>state</em> attorneys general into the Big <em>Threes</em> public records practices, the NCAP, the various public records class actions pending throughout the United States, and its obligations under the FCRA.\n\n21."]},"sort":[10.4719925,"3901721"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5995088","_score":10.254944,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","complaint_what_happened":"Have been receiving emails from XXXX with speedy Cash offering settlement of past due account. I believe this is a scam. Here is some of the emails : SPEEDY CASH PAYDAY LAON WARRANT NOTICE Attention, Debtor Loan Account : - # XXXX Due Amount- {$1200.00} Settlemeent Amount : - {$560.00} IF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE CASE OUTSIDE OF COURT THEN CONTACT TO RESTITUTION ATTORNEY : XXXX : XXXX After numerous attempts to reach you we haven't received any payment or any positive feedback from your side, as you are not paying your seriousness on this account which means that you are trying to run away from the situation and repeating the same activity which you did before with the loan company. We tried our best to help you on this matter but you are taking this matter lightly. \n\n\n\nAccount Status : WARRANT IS ACTIVE FOR SEARCH AND SEIZE ( Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. ) You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed against you for three serious allegations. \nThe charges with Speedy Cash Inc., pressed on you are 1 ) Violation of Federal Banking Regulation 2 ) Breach of contract with loan the company 3 ) Theft by Deception We have payment settlement option and repayment option 1. If you can make a one-time payment of {$560.00} ( same day payment ) we can close your case file with this amount only. \n\n\n\n2. If you are looking for weekly payment then you have to pay the total amount of {$1200.00} with payment arrangement and you can pay {$250.00} weekly till paid in full. \n\n\n\nKindly let us know what type of payment arrangement you are looking for at Contact at : XXXX : XXXX Basically all the loan companies working under Speedy cash Inc. are ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Cash Advance, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Advance XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Cash Advance,  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Cash AdvanceXXXX  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  ) So, it doesnt matter from which website or from which store you taken out this loan main lender have a rights that they can file complain and recover outstanding balance in the court house. \n\nWhen the creditor attempted to extract the funds back from you as a repayment, at that time you didnt pay your monthly installment on time. So, as of now rather than chasing you for money the creditor have simply decided to write this money as a loss, as well as declared to be stolen and they pressed charges against you. \n\n\n\n\nNow the affidavit is taken by FDCPA law that means Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under Section 9 Chapter 19.\n\nNow this means just two things for you : 1. ) If you are on any state supervised probation on payroll, then you will need to intimate the officer about this case.\n\n2. ) If you have any prior convictions including but not limited to worthless check, grand theft or money laundering, so please be aware that they shall handle this case as a habitual offense as your state is zero tolerance state. \n\n\n\nThis is also to inform you that the creditor has all the rights and authorities to inform your employer about this case and what will be the results and consequences comes once this case is downloaded and executed with the judgments against you, it is because you have kept your employers name as a security and also as an additional security two more names were used.\n\nFinally, you have the right to hire an attorney, if you have one or if you can not afford one then one shall be appointed to you. But please make sure that you have someone to help you out regarding this case because once this case is downloaded and executed with judgments against you and if you found guilty under the bench of jury then you have to bear the court charges as a penalty and the Amount is {$18000.00} excluding your bail charges, your attorney charges and the due amount pending on your name. \nFinally, your name and Social Security Information would be reported to the three major credit bureaus of USA such as 1. ) XXXX 2. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX 3. ) XXXX  Ultimately, it would be affecting your XXXX scores by XXXX negative points and your social security number would be black listed and you would also never be eligible for all the government benefits and entities. \n\nAccording to the orders of the court house the State Investigation Department Officers will deliver all the legal documents to your current employer and that can risk your current job and once the judge opens your case for execution legally tomorrow then these charges will be reflecting on your Credit Reports because of which it will be very difficult for you to get a new job in future.\n\nIF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE CASE OUTSIDE OF COURT THEN CONTACT TO RESTITUTION ATTORNEY : XXXX : XXXX : XXXX \" Debtor ( You ) has been declared as a guilty by Authorized Law Enforcement Department, Seizure Warrant has been activated under 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ) of the FDCPA Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt at the place where the property was taken. \n\n\n\nThe officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant, must prepare as required by law and promptly return this warrant. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3103a ( b ), I find that immediate notification may have an adverse result listed in 18 U.S.C. 2705 ( except for delay of trial ), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to delay notice to the person who, or whose property, will be searched or seized.\n\nNote : You will be contacted by your local county authorities. National Debt Recovery Department is closing this account and declaring as a GUILTY. If we will not receive any feedback from your side, then you will be the only person who will be responsible for any consequences. \n\n\nNOTE : YOU STILL HAVE CHANCE TO RECTIFY THIS OUTSIDE OF COURT, FOLLOW THE RESOLVEMENT PROCEDURE BELOW IF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE CASE OUTSIDE OF COURT THEN CONTACT TO RESTITUTION ATTORNEY : XXXX : XXXX Regards, Restitution Head Department Of l Debt Settlement Confidentiality Statement & Notice : This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, re transmission, dissemination to unauthorized persons or other use of the original message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please reply to the above-referenced sender about the error and permanently delete this message. Thank you for your co-operation. \n\nYou need to submit a minimum acceptable amount of {$200.00} today to keep your case on hold. \n\nGet back to us so we can send you payment information about how to make payment today. \nOkay, you need to submit payment of {$100.00} today by XXXX XXXX XXXX  but make sure you don't register or activate the card. \n\nGet back to us with card information and store zipcode along with image of the card and store receipt. \n\nRegards. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  is federally bonded because once you make the payment and email us with the reference number, it will generate a paid in full document which will be sent to you once the account is paid off. \n\n\n\nWe have sent you the information in order to put this case on hold as Fair Debt Collection Act UG-17 ( B ) Once your payment is submitted then you will get the receipt and once your account is been paid off you will receive the ( O.O.C.R ) OUTSIDE OF COURT RESTITUTION and ( N.O.C ) NON DUE CERTIFICATE that your account is paid in full.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-09-19T17:31:58.000Z","issue":"Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan","sub_product":"Personal line of credit","zip_code":"674XX","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5995088","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCF Intermediate Holdings LLC","date_received":"2022-09-19T17:17:07.000Z","state":"KS","company_public_response":"Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Account Status : WARRANT IS ACTIVE FOR SEARCH AND SEIZE ( Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. ) You are hereby notified that a lawsuit has been filed <em>against</em> you for <em>three</em> <em>serious</em> <em>allegations</em>. \nThe charges with Speedy Cash Inc., pressed on you are 1 ) Violation of Federal Banking Regulation 2 ) Breach of contract with loan the company 3 ) Theft by Deception We have payment settlement option and repayment option 1."]},"sort":[10.254944,"5995088"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10739565","_score":9.005146,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir, Madam, or to whom elsewise it may concern\nI am hereby contesting the accuracy of any information contained within my credit report that lacks\nsubstantiated evidence. This pertains particularly to unproven claims, such as allegations of delinquency and\nderogatoriness. My action is aligned with the provisions set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and\nadheres to the recognized industry standard for Metro 2 data field reporting. I emphasize that, in accordance\nwith federal and state laws, it is imperative that all allegations are reported accurately and comprehensively.\nReporting claims that contravene established laws and regulations is not only inaccurate but also unjust.\nI write to formally notify you of the necessity to ensure the factual and accurate reporting of all claims, as\nmandated by the Metro 2 reporting standard. I kindly request that you furnish tangible, verifiable evidence\nsubstantiating the existence of the account and its lawful usage. Should such evidence not be forthcoming, I\ninsist on the removal of said account from my credit report. In accordance with this request, I grant\nauthorization for the delivery of physical documentation detailing your actions and an updated copy of my\ncredit report. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.\nListed below are the Personal Information that are being challenged\nEmployer - XXXX XXXX XXXX\nIncorrect Name: - XXXX XXXX XXXX  Incorrect Previous Address: - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX  Incorrect Previous Address: - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX  Listed below are the Accounts that are being challenged\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Listed below are the Collections that are being challenged\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\nListed below are the Inquiries that are being challenged 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  The following personal information is incorrect - The personal data reporting is inaccurate.\n1 of 1\nI am writing to request that you kindly update your records regarding the account of Employer with XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have noticed that the current information in your records is inaccurate and does not meet the\nminimum standard for accuracy.\nMay I kindly bring to your attention that failure to correct inaccurate data may result in legal action. Inaccurate\ninformation has no place in either your records or on my credit report, and as a valued customer, I respectfully\ndemand that it be removed without any delay.\nIncorrect Name: - XXXX XXXX XXXX  The following personal information is incorrect - The personal data reporting is inaccurate.\nIncorrect Name: - XXXX XXXX XXXX\nI would like to kindly request your attention to a matter pertaining to the accuracy of names listed within your\nesteemed database. It would be greatly appreciated if you could ensure that my true and complete name is\nproperly reflected as XXXX XXXX. If there are any variations or discrepancies in your records, I kindly ask\nthat you promptly remove them to align with the accurate information provided. Your immediate assistance in\nthis regard would be highly valued and contribute to the overall reliability and integrity of your data.\nIncorrect Previous Address: - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX  The following personal information is incorrect - The personal data reporting is inaccurate.\nIncorrect Previous Address: - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX  I am writing to bring to your attention a critical matter pertaining to my credit file. It has recently come to my\nattention that an address is associated with my credit report which is no longer my place of residence and is\nnon-deliverable by the United States Postal Service. In the interest of safeguarding my personal identity and\npreventing any potential identity fraud, I kindly request that you remove this incorrect address from my file\nwithout any delay. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that I have never resided at the aforementioned\naddress, and thus, this personal information is inaccurate and incomplete. I urge you to take prompt action in\nremoving this information from my credit report, as it is your responsibility to ensure that the information in my\nfile is up-to-date and accurate.\nIncorrect Previous Address: - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX  The following personal information is incorrect - The personal data reporting is inaccurate.\nIncorrect Previous Address: - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FL XXXX  I would like to bring to your attention that the address associated with my profile is no longer valid and has\nbeen deemed undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. In order to prevent any potential instances of\nidentity fraud, I kindly request that you remove this address from my account. It is imperative that this action is\ntaken as soon as possible, and I trust that you understand the gravity of this situation. Moreover, I would like to\ninform you that I have never resided at this address, and therefore, the personal information linked to it is\ninaccurate and incomplete. I urge you to please delete this address from my credit file to ensure the\ncorrectness and integrity of my credit report.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is inaccuarately reporting late payments on multiple bureaus. The discrepancies in the payment\nstatus across XXXX, XXXX, and Transunion violate 15 USC 1681e(b), which mandates the bureaus to\nmaintain maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. The account also displays inconsistency in\nreporting activity dates. - I have not received any documentation validating the legitimacy of this debt or\nconfirming the details reported. Under FCRA 15 USC 1681i(a)(5)(A), unverifiable information must be deleted\nfrom my report. If the credit bureau cannot substantiate this account's accuracy, I expect to be removed\nimmediately\nI regret to express my disappointment regarding the lack of documented evidence concerning compliance\n2 of 1\nreporting standards and applicable consumer laws, which represents a significant deficiency. It is imperative\nthat the flawed and inaccurate report be expeditiously deleted to rectify this matter. Failure to comply may\nresult in legal repercussions for your company, as it has not fulfilled the prescribed requirements outlined by\nthe law in terms of compliance and consumer protection. Accurate information is of utmost importance to\nproactively mitigate potential future issues. Regrettably, it appears that your seriousness in addressing this\nmatter is lacking, and I am compelled to consider pursuing legal action as a necessary course of action.\nXXXX  - XXXX  The inconsistency misrepresents my payment history and is clear violation of FCRA 15 USC 1681e(b), which\nmandates that credit bureaus must report accurate and consistent information. - Under 15 USC 1681i(a)(1)(A),\nI request an immediate investigation into these discrepancies. If accurate information cannot be obtained, this\naccount must be updated or deleted. The account is marked with comment \"Consumer disputes this\ninformation charge\" However the information has not been updated to reflect any resolution, violating my rights\nunder 15 USC 1681s-2(a)(3). I have not receiving any evidence validating the legitimacy if this debt or details\nreported. Under FCRA 15 USC 1681i(a)(5)(A) unverifiable information must be deleted from my report. If\nEquifax cannot provide substantiating documentation for this account, I expect it to be removed immediately\nI am writing to express my profound disappointment regarding the current status of the information associated\nwith XXXX  and XXXX  within your database. It has come to my attention that the data is not\nup-to-date and fails to adhere to the minimum standards of accuracy that one would expect. I feel compelled to\nbring this matter to your immediate attention, as the presence of incorrect and incomplete information within\nyour database and on my credit report is both unacceptable and incongruous. In light of these concerns, I\nrespectfully request that you take immediate action to rectify this situation. Failure to do so in a timely manner\nmay leave me with no alternative but to explore legal remedies. I firmly believe that data integrity is paramount,\nand as such, I kindly ask for the expeditious deletion of the inaccurate information from your database.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments on multiple bureaus. The discrepancies in the payment\nstatus XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion violate 15 USC 1681e(b), which mandates the bureaus to maintain\nmaximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. The account also display inconsistency in reporting activity\ndate. - This is paid as agreed and should not be reporting negatively on my report. I am disputing the accuracy\nof this account under 15 USC 1681i. Please update the late payments to \"Paid as agreed, never late,\" in\naccordance with 15 USC 1681e(b). The account must be corrected across all three bureaus, or it should be\nremoved due to incomplete and inaccurate reporting. Failure to correct these discrepancies violates 15 USC\n1681i(5). If the issues are not resolved, the account should be deleted.\nI must express my disappointment that despite my repeated requests, you have not yet provided me with any\ndocumented proof of compliance reporting standards and applicable consumer laws. This deficiency is\nsignificant and cannot be overlooked.\nAs a result, I kindly request that you take immediate action to delete this flawed and inaccurate report from\nyour records. Failure to do so may result in legal action being taken against your company for failing to meet\nthe requirements set out by law with regards to these matters.\nIt is imperative that we have access to accurate and reliable information in order to prevent preventable issues\nfrom arising in the future. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the necessary\ndocumentation, so that I may better understand the situation at hand.\nIn addition, please refer to the attached image pertaining to my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which\nhighlights additional areas of concern. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the necessary steps to\naddress these concerns promptly.\nXXXX  - XXXX  The account is listed as \"closed\" by XXXX  and Transunion, but \"open\" by XXXX. The inconsistency in\n3 of 12\nreporting violates FCRA 15 USC 1681e(b), which mandates that credit bureaus report only accurate and\nconsistent informartion. - This is account is inaccurately reporting late payments, and discrepancies in\nreporting the across bureaus violate 15 USC 1681e(b), which mandates maximum possible accuracy in\nconsumer reports. The \"Late Pay\" issue reflects inconsistent data between XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion,\nwhich is legally required to be fully accurate and consistent.\nI am writing to express my profound dissatisfaction with the current state of the information pertaining to\nXXXX  and XXXX  within your database. It is disheartening to note that the provided data lacks\ncurrency and fails to adhere to the essential benchmarks of accuracy. I implore you to address this matter with\nthe utmost urgency. Failure to rectify this situation in a timely manner may leave me with no choice but to\npursue legal recourse. It is imperative to emphasize that erroneous and flawed data should have no bearing\nwithin your esteemed database or on my credit report. Consequently, I earnestly request the immediate\ndeletion of said information.\nXXXX  - XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT. This account violate these laws 15 USC 1681i,\n15 USC 1681s2, 15 USC 1681i5, 15 USC 1681eb.\nXXXX  - XXXX,\nI kindly request your attention to the data presented above, which appears to lack proper certification to meet\nreporting standards. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that this information may be incomplete,\noutdated, or unsupported. With utmost respect, I would appreciate your prompt consideration in removing any\ninaccurate or unsupported material from this page.\nXXXX  - XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - Please remove any inaccurate, incomplete, and/or unverifiable information from\nmy consumer report.\nWe would like to bring to your attention the inconsistency pertaining to the currently reported XXXX  with account number displayed as XXXX, which has been observed across the\nthree credit reporting agencies. It is our obligation to ensure that all reported items comply with the mandated\nreporting industrys own Metro 2 Data-filled Field Formatted reporting compliance standards. Any\ninconsistency, incompleteness, inaccuracy, or omission of the reported item serves as a discrepancy from\nthese standards, which must not deviate to maintain the integrity of the data, as stated in the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX.\nAs such, until there is evident confirmation of all aspect(s) of claim(s) that are factually true, correct, complete,\ntimely, physically verifiable, and elsewise undeniably valid, particularly if not certifiably compliant in full\naccording to the above-mentioned Metro 2 formatted industry requirements, the reported item in question\nremains lawfully questionable.\nXXXX  - XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - Please remove any inaccurate, incomplete, and/or unverifiable information from\nmy consumer report.\n4 of 12\nWe would like to bring to your attention that the XXXX currently being reported, along with its\ncorresponding account number XXXX, exhibits inconsistencies across the three major credit reporting\nagencies. It is important to note that any discrepancy, incompleteness, inaccuracy, or omission in the reported\ninformation goes against the Metro 2 Data-filled Field Formatted reporting compliance standards, which are\nmandatorily enforced by the reporting industry. Deviation from these standards can potentially compromise the\nintegrity of the data, as outlined in the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, and thus, raises concerns about the legality of the\nreported item until all claims are verifiably true, correct, complete, timely, physically verifiable, and fully\ncompliant with the aforementioned Metro 2 formatted industry requirements. Therefore, we kindly request your\nattention to the following suspect data fields associated with the contested reported item of injury.\nXXXX  - XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT. This account violate these laws 15 USC 1681i,\n15 USC 1681s2, 15 USC 1681i5, 15 USC 1681eb.\nI am writing to bring to your attention the following details pertaining to XXXX  - XXXX. It is\nimportant to note that the aforementioned data has not undergone certification to comply with any reporting\nstandards. Consequently, we cannot assure its accuracy, currency, or comprehensiveness. Moreover, it is\npertinent to highlight that this information may be incomplete, outdated, or lacking support. Therefore, I kindly\nrequest the removal of any erroneous or unsupported content from this page.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT. This account violate these laws 15 USC 1681i,\n15 USC 1681s2, 15 USC 1681i5, 15 USC 1681eb.\nI would like to respectfully bring to your attention that the account identified as XXXX XXXX XXXX has been\nreported as an alleged XXXX, which has not been confirmed. I have received a section of a credit report\nindicating that the account number has not been reported or is not in compliance with the established\nstandards for credit reporting agencies. This can raise concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the data\nbeing reported. It is important to adhere to the established standards for reporting data fields, including the\naccount number, without any deviation, as emphasized in the report. Thank you for your attention to this\nmatter.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nThe collection account shows inconsistencies in bureaus and lacks validation under 15 USC 1692g.\nAdditionally, the account charge-off status does not align with accurate reporting procedures, violating 15 USC\n1681e(b), which mandates maximum possible accuracy in credit reporting. - Please remove any inaccurate,\nincomplete, and/or unverifiable information from my consumer report.\nWe would like to bring to your attention that there appears to be an inconsistency with regards to the\nXXXX  associated with the displayed XXXX  across all three credit reporting agencies.\nIt is imperative to note that any inconsistency, incompleteness, inaccuracy or omission in the reported item is a\ndeviation from the mandatory industry standards for reporting compliance, as per the Metro 2 Data-filled Field\nFormatted reporting compliance standards. Any deviation from these standards could potentially jeopardize the\nintegrity of the data (as stated in XXXX XXXX XXXX, and therefore, the accuracy of the reported item is subject\nto lawful scrutiny until all aspects of the claim are factually confirmed to be true, correct, complete, timely,\nphysically verifiable, and otherwise undeniably valid, particularly if not compliant with the above-mentioned\nMetro 2 formatted industry requirements. We respectfully request your attention to the following suspect\nreported data fields alleged for this now contested reported item of injury.\n5 of 12\nXXXX  - XXXX  This account is reporting inconsistencies in reporting is a violation of FCRA 15 USC 1681e(b), which requires\ncredit bureaus to report only accurate and consistent information. - PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT. This\naccount violate these laws 15 USC 1681i, 15 USC 1681s2, 15 USC 1681i5, 15 USC 1681eb.\nXXXX  - XXXX,\nI respectfully bring to your attention that the data provided above has not undergone the necessary certification\nprocess to meet established reporting standards. Additionally, it appears that this information may be\nincomplete, outdated, or lacking proper support. Therefore, I kindly request the removal of any inaccurate or\nunsupported content from this page. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - Please remove any inaccurate, incomplete, and/or unverifiable information from\nmy consumer report.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nI kindly bring to your attention that the aforementioned data has not been duly certified to comply with\nestablished reporting standards. Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that this information might be\nincomplete, outdated, or lacking in support. Therefore, I respectfully request the removal of any inaccurate or\nunsupported content from this page.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The collection account shows inconsistencies in bureaus and lacks validation under 15 USC 1692g.\nAdditionally, the account charge-off status does not align with accurate reporting procedures, violating 15 USC\n1681e(b), which mandates maximum possible accuracy in credit reporting. - PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT.\nThis account violate these laws 15 USC 1681i, 15 USC 1681s2, 15 USC 1681i5, 15 USC 1681eb. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,\nI would like to kindly bring to your attention that the data presented above appears to lack certification to meet\nthe required reporting standards. Additionally, it is essential to acknowledge that this information may be\nincomplete, outdated, or unsupported. Therefore, I respectfully request the removal of any inaccurate or\nunsupported material from this record. XXXX XXXX XXXX\nThis account is inaccurately reporting late payments and charge-offs with discrepancies across all three credit\nbureaus, which violates 15 USC 1681e(b) requiring maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. The\n\"Late Pay\" and \"Charge Off\" remarks are inconsistent, and the balance information lacks compliance with the\nstandard reporting accuracy. - Please remove any inaccurate, incomplete, and/or unverifiable information from\nmy consumer report.\nI respectfully request that any detrimental aspects related to the allegations made against me be expunged\nfrom my credit report. The specific item in question is XXXX XXXX XXXX I hold the belief that this\nitem may have been reported unjustly, lacking the necessary authentication, or even in violation of the law.\nIt is my understanding that the law requires the expunction of the accusations of late payments associated with\nthis item. Thus, I request that such allegations be deleted from my credit report promptly.\n6 of 12\nINQUIRY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI have attempted to communicate with INQUIRY XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the credit inquiry they\nplaced on my credit profile. Despite my request for the removal of the inquiry and the cessation of their\nunlawful activities, they have failed to respond. It has been over 30 business days since I sent the letter, and I\nhave not received any communication from their office.\nAs a result, I am respectfully requesting your assistance in resolving this matter. Pursuant to the provisions of\nthe Fair Credit Reporting Act, I kindly request that you conduct an investigation into this inquiry on my credit\nreport to determine the identity of the authorizing party. If, following the completion of your investigation, you\nfind merit in my assertion, I request that you promptly remove the unauthorized inquiry from my credit report\nand provide me with an updated copy of my credit report, which can be sent to the address listed above.\nIn the event that you determine the inquiry to be valid, I respectfully request that you provide me with a detailed\ndescription of the procedures that were utilized during your investigation within 15 business days of its\nconclusion. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I am writing to express my deep concern regarding an unauthorized inquiry that appeared on my credit report\nrecently. As you are aware, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it is imperative that no one accesses an\nindividual's information without obtaining their prior consent. Therefore, I would like to request that you provide\nme with evidence that justifies the presence of this inquiry on my credit report.\nI kindly ask that you furnish me with the necessary documentation that demonstrates the basis for this inquiry,\nincluding any relevant details and signatures that confirm that I had indeed applied for a loan or line-of\u0002business venture through the company in question. I believe that upon reviewing the evidence, you will agree\nthat these inquiries were not appropriate and should not have been included on my credit report.\nI would appreciate it if you could resolve this issue promptly and ensure that my credit report accurately\nreflects my creditworthiness. Please let me know if there is any additional information that you may need from\nme to resolve this matter satisfactorily.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI hope this message finds you well. I recently reviewed my credit report and identified an unauthorized inquiry\nrelated to my account with INQUIRY and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX According to the Fair Credit Reporting\nAct, it is imperative that my information remains safeguarded, and access to it requires proper authorization.\nHence, I kindly request your assistance in providing evidence of the justification for this inquiry. Your\ncooperation in promptly resolving this matter is greatly appreciated.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI write to bring to your attention a concerning matter regarding my recent review of the credit report I received.\n7 of 12\nIt has come to my notice that several credit inquiries have been recorded from companies that I do not recall\ngranting authorization to. I am well aware of the importance of obtaining explicit consent before placing any\ninquiry on my credit file, and thus, I kindly request that you take immediate action to remove this unauthorized\ninquiry from my credit file. Additionally, I kindly request that you provide me with comprehensive\ndocumentation confirming that a thorough investigation has been conducted and that the unauthorized\ninquiries have been expeditiously removed from my records.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI trust this message finds you well. I am writing to address a matter concerning my account with INQUIRY and\nits corresponding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. During a recent review of my credit report, I have come across\nan unauthorized inquiry. Under the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it is imperative to ensure that\nmy personal information remains protected, and access is granted solely with proper authorization. I kindly\nrequest your assistance in providing documented justification for the aforementioned inquiry. Your prompt\nattention to this concern is highly appreciated, and I believe that together, we can ensure the accuracy and\nintegrity of my credit report.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX  Verify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nRegarding the information provided under the INQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX, I would like to bring to your\nattention that it has not been verified to meet the necessary reporting standards. Its accuracy, completeness,\nand currency have not been established, and to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws,\ndocumentation proving compliance is required. The information supplied is inadequate, and I am requesting\nthe immediate deletion of any incorrect, incomplete, or unsupported data.\nI would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me with any further information or documentation necessary to\naddress these concerns and ensure that the information provided is compliant with the relevant standards.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Verify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI recently obtained a copy of my credit report and was disconcerted to observe credit inquiries made by\ncompanies for which I have no recollection of granting authorization. I am aware that inquiries should not be\nplaced on my credit file without proper consent, and I kindly request the prompt removal of this unauthorized\ninquiry from my credit file. Furthermore, I would greatly appreciate receiving official documentation confirming\nthat a thorough investigation has been conducted and that the aforementioned unauthorized inquiries have\nbeen successfully expunged.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI recently obtained a copy of my credit report and was surprised to discover credit inquiries made by\ncompanies that I have no recollection of authorizing. As per the established protocols, it is crucial that no\ninquiries be placed on my credit file without explicit authorization. Therefore, I kindly request the immediate\nremoval of this particular inquiry from my credit file. Additionally, I would highly appreciate receiving\ncomprehensive documentation affirming that a thorough investigation has been conducted and the\nunauthorized inquiries have been diligently eradicated.\n8 of 12\nINQUIRY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nI hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention the presence of an alleged hard\ninquiry on my credit report associated with my INQUIRY and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Upon receiving\nmy credit report today, I noticed this inquiry, but I do not have any recollection of authorizing it. Therefore, I\nkindly request that you provide me with documented proof of the credit application, including a valid signature\nconfirming my application for credit with the said company. If such documentation cannot be provided, I would\nappreciate an immediate removal of the alleged inquiry from my credit report.\nINQUIRY - XXXX XXXX XXXX\nVerify that the following inquiry was authorized? - If you are unable to verify this information, please promptly\nremove it from my credit report.\nPlease see attachment","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-09T18:16:47.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32244","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10739565","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-09T17:59:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This pertains particularly to unproven claims, such as <em>allegations</em> of delinquency and\nderogatoriness. My action is aligned with the provisions set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and\nadheres to the recognized industry standard for Metro 2 data field reporting. I emphasize that, in accordance\nwith federal and <em>state</em> laws, it is imperative that all <em>allegations</em> are reported accurately and comprehensively."]},"sort":[9.005146,"10739565"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13255877","_score":8.21901,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"YOUR COMPLAINT From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Subject : Urgent Complaint Against Portfolio Recovery Associates for Continued FDCPA and FCRA Violations Dear CFPB, I am filing this complaint to formally report Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC for ongoing, malicious, and unlawful debt collection and credit reporting practices that have directly violated my legal rights under both federal and state laws. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve this issue respectfully and legally, PRA continues to harass me, ignore written requests, and maliciously harm my credit profile by furnishing inaccurate, unverifiable, and unauthorized information to as many as 12 credit bureaus, including Equifax. Background : I have sent three written requests demanding debt validation and an assignment contract, as required under 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( b ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Instead of proper validation, PRA has only responded with generic credit card statements, which do not satisfy legal debt validation requirements. They refuse to disclose how much they purchased the alleged debt for, which is a critical part of proving ownership. As you know, once a debt is charged off, it is often transferred into a structured trust and pooled with other debts. In these cases, the ownership becomes obscured, and third-party collectors like PRA often lack proper legal standing to collect or report the debt. After I sent a cease and desist letter, PRA ignored it and then went so far as to report the account to Equifax, escalating their malicious actions after I legally revoked their right to contact me. Legal Violations : FDCPA 809 ( b ) 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) : PRA failed to provide proper validation of the debt despite multiple written requests. Their vague replies with generic billing statements are not sufficient proof under the FDCPA. FDCPA 805 ( c ) 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) : I clearly submitted a cease and desist letter, yet PRA has continued to contact me indirectly through reporting, which is a violation of my right to be left alone under the law. Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) : PRA has reported this debt without complete or accurate investigation, which is a violation of their duty to report only verifiable, complete, and accurate data. The Grim Bail Leach Act ( referring to the Fair Debt Buyer Practices Act and elements of consumer protection law often referenced in financial trust violations ) : PRAs likely involvement in purchasing pooled debts from a trust without proper legal assignment or chain of custody creates serious standing and jurisdiction issues. If they can not prove ownership through contract assignment, they have no legal authority to collect or report this alleged debt. Violation of My Due Process Rights : I was never properly notified of any assignment or sale of the debt, nor was I presented with any opportunity to dispute this before it was maliciously placed on my credit report. This is deceptive, harmful, and intended to coerce payment under duress Fair Solution : Immediate removal of any and all entries from Portfolio Recovery Associates on all credit reporting agencies, including XXXX XXXX XXXX and any others they may have contacted. A formal investigation into PRAs continued violations and refusal to honor consumer protection laws. PRA must be permanently barred from ever contacting me again in writing, phone, email, or courier, and be prohibited from furnishing information about this alleged debt in the future. I request that PRA be fined or penalized for their pattern of abuse against not just myself but other consumers who have also reported similar misconduct. This is a matter of abuse of the credit system, and PRA has demonstrated repeated, intentional violations of law. Their actions have affected my ability to rebuild my credit, and their refusal to follow federal law is unacceptable. Please treat this complaint as urgent and respond with appropriate action. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  TX XXXX Email : XXXX CFPB Orders Repeat Offender Portfolio Recovery Associates to Pay More Than {$24.00} XXXX for Continued Illegal Debt Collection Practices and Consumer Reporting Violations Debt collection giant filed lawsuits even when it lacked documentation about the debt XX/XX/XXXX Share & print XXXX XXXX XXXX  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) took action today against Portfolio Recovery Associates, one of the largest debt collectors in the nation, for violating a XXXX CFPB order and engaging in other violations of law. The CFPB filed a proposed order today that, if entered by the court, would require Portfolio Recovery Associates to pay more than {$12.00} XXXX to consumers harmed by its illegal debt collection practices, in addition to a {$12.00} XXXX penalty that would be deposited into the CFPBs victims relief fund. Portfolio Recovery Associates violated the XXXX order by collecting on unsubstantiated debt, collecting on debt without providing required documentation and disclosures to consumers, suing or threatening legal action against consumers without offering or possessing required documentation, and suing to collect on debt outside the statute of limitations. Portfolio Recovery Associates also failed to properly investigate and resolve consumer disputes about the company 's credit reporting. Todays action is one of many actions the CFPB has recently taken to hold repeat offenders accountable. \n\nAfter getting caught red-handed in XXXX, Portfolio Recovery Associates continued violating the law through intimidation, deception, and illegal debt collection tactics and lawsuits, said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX . CFPB orders are not suggestions, and companies can not ignore them simply because they are large or dominant in the market. \n\nPortfolio Recovery Associates is a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded PRA Group ( XXXX : PRAA ) and is one of the largest debt collectors in the United States. The companys principal headquarters is in XXXX, Virginia. PRA Group reported net income of over {$180.00} XXXX in XXXX. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB ordered Portfolio Recovery Associates to pay more than {$27.00} XXXX in consumer refunds and penalties for deceptive debt collection tactics. In that case, the CFPB found that Portfolio Recovery Associates collected on unsubstantiated debt, filed misleading affidavits in debt-collection actions, misrepresented that it intended to prove debts if consumers contested them, and misrepresented that the company had legally enforceable claims to debts outside of the applicable statutes of limitations. \n\nThe XXXX order required Portfolio Recovery Associates to adhere to provisions including prohibitions on : Collecting debts without a reasonable basis, Selling debt, Threatening or filing collection lawsuits without an intent to prove the debt, Filing false or misleading affidavits in debt-collection actions, Making false or misleading representations, and Collecting or suing on debt that was outside the statute of limitations. \nIn todays complaint, the CFPB charged Portfolio Recovery Associates with violating numerous requirements of the XXXX order during the five-year period the order was in effect and engaging in deceptive conduct in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act, including : Making representations about unsubstantiated debts : Portfolio Recovery Associates made at least tens of thousands of representations about unsubstantiated, disputed debts, failing to review the required documentation to support the claim.\n\nThreatening consumers with potential legal actions and initiating debt collection lawsuits without offering or possessing required documentation : Portfolio Recovery Associates lawyers sent millions of form letters to consumers notifying them of potential legal action without offering to provide all required documents. Portfolio Recovery Associates also initiated thousands of legal actions against consumers when it lacked proper documentation about the debt.\n\nMisrepresenting that it would provide certain documents within thirty days : The form letter notifying consumers of potential legal action stated that, upon receipt of a written request from the consumer, Portfolio Recovery Associates would provide within 30 days of request the proof of documentation mentioned in the letter. On numerous occasions, Portfolio Recovery Associates failed to timely provide these documents after receiving a consumers written request for them. This impeded consumers ability to determine whether a debt was truly owed and how they should respond to allegations of outstanding debts. \nCollecting on time-barred debt without making required disclosures : On numerous occasions, Portfolio Recovery Associates did not provide the required disclosures to consumers when collecting on debts beyond the statute of limitations. When the company purchased debt, it estimated the statute of limitations that governed the debt, and in some cases that date was later than the actual statute of limitations. \nSuing to collect on time-barred debt : Portfolio Recovery Associates initiated at least dozens of lawsuits for debt that was too old to legally enforce. In doing so, Portfolio Recovery Associates falsely represented that those consumers had legally enforceable obligations to pay those debts when in fact they did not because the debt was outside the statute of limitations. \nThe CFPB also alleges that Portfolio Recovery Associates committed numerous violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its implementing Regulation V, which include : Failing to inform consumers about investigation outcomes : On numerous occasions when Portfolio Recovery Associates determined that a consumers dispute was frivolous or irrelevant, it failed to timely inform the consumer about what information would be necessary for Portfolio Recovery Associates to investigate the dispute. \nFailing to timely resolve disputes : On at least tens of thousands of occasions, Portfolio Recovery Associates failed to resolve disputes within the required time. \nConducting unreasonable investigations : On numerous occasions when a consumer alleged fraud or identify theft, Portfolio Recovery Associates did not conduct a sufficient investigation that considered all necessary information. \nEnforcement Action Under the CFPA, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial laws, including engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB alleges that Portfolio Recovery Associates violated the XXXX order, the CFPAs prohibition on deceptive conduct, the FDCPA, FCRA, and Regulation V.\n\nIf entered by the court, the order would require Portfolio Recovery Associates to : Provide redress to consumers : Portfolio Recovery Associates would pay at least {$12.00} XXXX to consumers harmed by its illegal collection practices.\n\nClean up its faulty operations : The order prohibits Portfolio Recovery Associates from collecting debts unless it has access to certain documents that meet its obligation to have a reasonable basis to believe it is collecting debts that consumers actually owe. \nFix its failures to properly respond to consumers : The order requires Portfolio Recovery Associates to improve their response when consumers report that they do not owe a debt because of fraud or identity theft. And it ensures that Portfolio Recovery Associates adequately responds to consumer disputes in a timely manner about information Portfolio Recovery Associates has furnished to consumer reporting agencies. \nPay {$12.00} XXXX in penalties : Portfolio Recovery Associates would pay a {$12.00} XXXX penalty to the CFPB, which would be deposited into the CFPBs victims relief fund. \nRead todays proposed order. \n\nRead the XXXX order against Portfolio Recovery Associates. \n\nIn XXXX, the CFPB proposed a new registry to help detect and deter repeat offenders like Portfolio Recovery Associates. The public can submit comments on the proposal until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIf you or someone you know needs help dealing with a debt collector, the CFPB publishes resources on how to protect your legal rights and navigate your financial future. \n\nConsumers can submit complaints about financial products or services by visiting the CFPBs website or by calling ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nEmployees of companies who they believe their company has violated federal consumer financial laws are encouraged to send information about what they know to XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-06T13:12:13.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"77070","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13255877","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","date_received":"2025-04-30T11:47:47.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite my repeated efforts to resolve this issue respectfully and legally, PRA continues to harass me, ignore written requests, and maliciously harm my credit profile by furnishing inaccurate, unverifiable, and unauthorized information to as many as 12 credit <em>bureaus</em>, including Equifax. Background : I have sent <em>three</em> written requests demanding debt validation and an assignment contract, as required under 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( b ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA )."]},"sort":[8.21901,"13255877"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6924689","_score":7.987889,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"They are reporting negative or late payments. All 3 credit bureaus including XXXX XXXX showing my credit line amounts. Skip to content XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Login In Search XXXX Call Today : ( XXXX ) XXXX Fair Credit Reporting Act : Common Violations and Your Rights Updated : XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX How to Increase Credit Score Fair Credit Reporting Act : Common Violations and Your Rights A consumers financial future can rise and fall on whats in their credit report so keeping a close eye on the contents should be important to everyone. Credit reports are used to decide who gets a loan, a credit card, a job, or even an apartment to rent, so few things are more crucial than having a credit report free of errors. \n\nStill, credit report errors are made, and the consequences can be devastating. Thats why its vital to look at your credit report at least once a year and make sure all the information in it, is accurate. Federal law allows you to get a free credit report from each of the three major reporting bureaus by signing up at XXXX. \n\nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 Recognizing the life-altering power of credit information, Congress adopted the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in 1970 to protect consumers and regulate how credit information is used and disseminated. The law gives consumers the right to know whats in their credit reports and free access to the information credit rating agencies use to assign credit scores. \n\nThe FCRA also requires that anyone who denies a person credit, insurance or employment because of what is in their credit report, tell you where they got the information and how to contact the issuer. \n\nThe Federal Trade Commission enforces the FCRA. The Dodd-Frank Act transferred most of the rulemaking responsibilities to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , but the FTC still retains enforcement authority.\n\nThe nations three largest credit reporting agencies Equifax, XXXX and XXXX are required by law to do everything in their power to accurately gather and report consumer information. Together, they keep files on more than 200 million Americans and issue more than three billion reports a year.\n\nGiven the volume of information, its inevitable that errors occur. The FCRA gives consumers the means to detect inaccuracies in their reports and file complaints. It also requires reporting agencies to investigate and correct bogus information. \n\nMistakes are often clerical, but sometimes theyre the result of old information reported as current. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX reported the troubles of a Mississippi woman whose {$40000.00} second-mortgage debt was discharged through a bankruptcy filing in XXXX. But four years later, the debt appeared on her report as unpaid. She tried repeatedly to get the error removed, but it took intervention from Mississippis attorney general to have her report corrected. \n\nCases like that are common. State attorneys investigate FCRA complaints and many have consumer information on their web pages to let people know what their rights are and the steps to take if they uncover erroneous information. \n\nCommon violations of the FCRA include : Failure to update reports after completion of bankruptcy is just one example. Agencies might also report old debts as new and report a financial account as active when it was closed by the consumer. \nCreditors give reporting agencies inaccurate financial information about you. \nReporting agencies mixing up one persons information with anothers because of similar ( or same ) name or social security number. \nAgencies fail to follow guidelines for handling disputes. \nPulling your report for an impermissible purpose. For instance, viewing a credit report to determine if you have assets before filing certain kinds of lawsuits. \nFailing to send you notifications about your credit report or score in violation of the FCRA. \nReporting agencies providing information to unauthorized persons or businesses. \nNot all FCRA actions are the result of errors or poorly maintained files. For example, the XXXX XXXX XXXX reported about a data broker that agreed to pay {$800000.00} in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for allegations he illegally sold personal information to human resources, background screening and recruiting companies. \n\nYour Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act If youre turned down for credit or have some other reason to suspect that a credit report might have erroneously damaged you, get the name of the national credit agency that provided the report. A landlord who turned you down for bad credit or a bank that denied you a credit card will tell you which agency issued the report. \n\nNext, contact the agency and request a copy of the report. Keep in mind that if the report contains incorrect information, other agencies could be using the same information in their reports. The agency that provided the information must supply you with its report within 30 days of the denial for free. Otherwise, it can charge a fee to see a report. \n\nIf you find inaccurate or outdated information, notify the credit reporting agency in writing, explaining the error and demanding that it be immediately corrected. If the agency investigates and does nothing, and if you are still sure the report contains errors, contact the Federal Trade Commission or the state attorney generals office nearest you. \n\nIts important to know your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act : You have a right to know whats in your file. Contact the credit-rating agency that issued a report that was used to deny you credit, housing or employment. Youre entitled to a free report for any of these reasons : Information was used against you ; you are a victim of identity theft and place a fraud alert on your file ; your file contains inaccurate information that resulted from fraud ; youre on public assistance or you have been unemployed but expect to apply for work within 60 days. \nIf you have been the victim of identity theft, you are entitled to ask businesses for a copy of transaction records relating to the theft of your identity. For example, loan or credit card applications. You also may authorize law enforcement agencies to request the information. Businesses must provide it within 30 days of receiving the request. Some companies are reluctant to release this information claiming it is proprietary information or that they are protecting the consumer. However, the FCRA states that businesses are required to provide applications and business transaction records to help victims document fraudulent charges. The FTC outlines the obligations for businesses here. \nYou have a right to ask for your credit score. Credit reporting agencies provide these. In some instances, mortgage lenders will tell you your score when you apply for a loan. Also, some credit card issuers now include up-to-date scores in their monthly statements. \nYou have a right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information in your report. \nCredit reporting agencies are obliged to correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information. \nReporting agencies must not disseminate outdated negative information. \nInformation in your file is limited to those with a valid need for it. \nYou must give written consent for credit agencies to send your credit report to employers. \nIf your rights have been violated under the FCRA, you are entitled to seek actual or statutory damages, recover attorneys fees and court costs and request punitive damages. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act Violations There are several common violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, involving both the thousands of companies reporting information and the three major bureaus taking the information and assigning it to your credit report. \n\nSome of the common violations include : Furnishing and Reporting Old Information When your credit circumstances change, your credit report must be updated. If its not, thats a violation. How could some violations occur? \n\nReporting a debt as charged off, when it was settled or paid off. \nReporting late payments when your payments were timely. \nReporting old debts as new ones. \nReporting that an account was active after it was voluntarily closed by a consumer. \nFailure to report that a debt was discharged in bankruptcy. \nReporting information that is more than XXXX years old ( when XXXX XXXX bankruptcy notices should lapse ) or XXXX years old ( XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy ). \nInaccurate statement of balance due. \nFailing to have a reasonable procedure for you to report identity theft ( or supplying credit information on an account where identity theft was previously reported ). \nMixing Files Mixing files with someone else who has similar background information ( sometimes as careless as failing to distinguish the Jr. and Sr. in similar surnames ). \n\nDebt Dispute Procedures for Credit Bureaus When submitting a written dispute about the accuracy of your credit report, the credit bureaus must follow proper procedures, such as conducting an investigation, correcting inaccuracies or removing a disputed debt. Sometimes, agencies fall short in these areas. \n\nDebt Dispute Violations for Creditors Creditors are obligated to note every disputed debt and submit corrected information, stop submitting incorrect information when it has been reported, conduct an internal investigation of disputes within 30 days and provide a reasonable procedure to submit a written dispute or report of identity theft. \n\nPrivacy Violations Your credit report can be disclosed only to entities with a valid need, such as creditors, landlords, insurance providers, utility companies and employers ( with your consent ). Its also a violation to pull a credit report for an impermissible purpose, such as determining if you are collectible in a lawsuit, an employer pulling the report without permission or a creditor on a discharged debt in bankruptcy using the report to check on your current financial activity. \n\nWithholding Notices You must be given notice on the reporting, handling and use of your credit information. Violations could include : A creditor failing to notify you when it supplies negative credit information. \nA user of credit information ( prospective employer or lender ) failing to notify you of a negative decision based upon your credit report. Or that user of credit information refusing to identify the source of credit information it obtained about you. \nA creditor failing to provide your credit score if it was used as part of any credit decision. \nA creditor failing to notify you of your right to obtain a free credit report. \nIts important to be educated and know your Fair Credit Reporting Act rights. \n\nRecovering Damages for FCRA Violations The information covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act is so critical to the financial health of an individual that when violations of the FCRA occur, the victim can file suit and collect for damages. \n\nThe extent to which a victim can be compensated depends largely on whether the violation was willful or negligent. The parties responsible for possible violations include credit reporting agencies, businesses furnishing the information to credit agencies or someone using information off the credit report to make a decision about a job, or housing. \n\nWillful FCRA Violations These are the more serious violations and more highly compensated because it means the agency, business or individual was aware their actions would cause harm to you, but went ahead and did them anyway. \n\nThe types of damages that can be compensated here include : Actual damages. These are damages that can be proved because of harm caused by an action or failure to act by the agency, business or individual. There is no limit to how high an award can be. \nStatutory damages. These are damages that dont require proof, but the compensation is limited to somewhere between {$100.00} and {$1000.00}. \nPunitive damages. These are awarded to punish an agency, business or individual and deter them from violating the FCRA again. There is no limit on how much can be awarded. \nAttorney fees and court costs. You can have the cost of litigating the matter covered if you win your case. \nNegligent FCRA Violations When an agency, business or individual fails to exercise proper care or takes action that a reasonable person would not with regard to your credit information, that is negligent behavior and money damages can result. \n\nThe types of damages available are the same as with willful violations, namely actual damages ( no limit ) ; statutory damages ( usually between {$100.00} and {$1000.00} ) ; punitive damages ( no limit ) and attorney fees and court costs. \n\nFrivolous FCRA Lawsuit Penalties Credit reporting bureaus have the right to terminate investigations of violations if the agency determines that the consumers complaint is frivolous or irrelevant. \n\nTypically, this happens when the consumer fails to offer sufficient information to investigate the disputed information. \n\nThey also may lose a court case if they filed suit in bad faith or to harass an agency, business or individual. If this happens, the consumer may be required to pay the attorney fees for filing bad faith papers.\n\nDeadlines Here are four key deadlines to remember when dealing with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \n\nInaccurate information must be corrected or deleted within 30 days of your dispute ( or up to 45 days if you provide additional information after submitting your written dispute ). \nBusinesses or other information furnishers must tell you about any negative information reported to the credit bureaus within 30 days. \nThe statute of limitations for filing a suit is two years after the date you discovered a violation or within five years of the date of the violation. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX The three major credit bureaus are required to provide you with one free copy of your credit report every year, if you request it. You must properly identify yourself, of course. The Web site XXXX is a prime place to obtain your free annual credit report. \n\nIn some cases, the credit bureaus also must provide you with another free copy of your credit report if : A business has denied your application or charged a higher interest rate because of information in your credit report. \nYoure unemployed and planning to look for a job within the next 60 days. \nYoure on welfare. \nYouve been a victim of identity theft ( or if your credit report contains inaccurate information because of identity theft ). \nOther Credit Reporting Agencies There is much emphasis on the three nationwide consumer reporting companies Equifax, XXXX and XXXX but its useful to know there are other sources of consumer reporting information. \n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published a list of other companies that self-identify as consumer reporting agencies. These companies collect information and provide reports to other companies about you in the areas of credit, employment, residential rental housing, insurance and other decision-making situations. Its worth a look to determine which of the companies could be important to you. \n\nThis list, while not all-inclusive, has been independently verified by the CFPB. \n\nMeanwhile, here are the best contact numbers for the XXXX nationwide consumer reporting companies : Equifax : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) XXXX Problems with credit reporting bureaus are not unusual. Getting timely corrections on mistakes on your credit report can be difficult, but is worth pursuing. \n\nIf you have questions about the credit reporting bureaus and how information is gathered, you should contact a nonprofit credit counseling agency like XXXX and speak with a certified counselor about the problem. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | We do not lend money.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-04T03:51:52.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20877","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6924689","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-05-04T03:26:54.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Debt Dispute Procedures for Credit <em>Bureaus</em> When submitting a written dispute about the accuracy of your credit report, the credit <em>bureaus</em> must follow proper procedures, such as conducting an <em>investigation</em>, correcting inaccuracies or removing a disputed debt. Sometimes, agencies fall short in these areas."]},"sort":[7.987889,"6924689"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6924561","_score":7.982708,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"They are reporting negative or late payments. All 3 credit bureaus including credit Karma showing my credit line amounts. Skip to content XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In Search XXXX Call Today : ( XXXX ) XXXX Fair Credit Reporting Act : Common Violations and Your Rights Updated : XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card Debt Relief Credit Counseling How to Increase Credit Score Fair Credit Reporting Act : Common Violations and Your Rights A consumers financial future can rise and fall on whats in their credit report so keeping a close eye on the contents should be important to everyone. Credit reports are used to decide who gets a loan, a credit card, a job, or even an apartment to rent, so few things are more crucial than having a credit report free of errors. \n\nStill, credit report errors are made, and the consequences can be devastating. Thats why its vital to look at your credit report at least once a year and make sure all the information in it, is accurate. Federal law allows you to get a free credit report from each of the three major reporting bureaus by signing up at XXXX. \n\nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 Recognizing the life-altering power of credit information, Congress adopted the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in 1970 to protect consumers and regulate how credit information is used and disseminated. The law gives consumers the right to know whats in their credit reports and free access to the information credit rating agencies use to assign credit scores. \n\nThe FCRA also requires that anyone who denies a person credit, insurance or employment because of what is in their credit report, tell you where they got the information and how to contact the issuer. \n\nThe Federal Trade Commission enforces the FCRA. The Dodd-Frank Act transferred most of the rulemaking responsibilities to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX but the FTC still retains enforcement authority. \n\nThe nations three largest credit reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX and TransUnion are required by law to do everything in their power to accurately gather and report consumer information. Together, they keep files on more than 200 million Americans and issue more than three billion reports a year.\n\nGiven the volume of information, its inevitable that errors occur. The FCRA gives consumers the means to detect inaccuracies in their reports and file complaints. It also requires reporting agencies to investigate and correct bogus information. \n\nMistakes are often clerical, but sometimes theyre the result of old information reported as current. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX reported the troubles of a Mississippi woman whose {$40000.00} second-mortgage debt was discharged through a bankruptcy filing in XXXX. But four years later, the debt appeared on her report as unpaid. She tried repeatedly to get the error removed, but it took intervention from Mississippis attorney general to have her report corrected. \n\nCases like that are common. State attorneys investigate FCRA complaints and many have consumer information on their web pages to let people know what their rights are and the steps to take if they uncover erroneous information. \n\nCommon violations of the FCRA include : Failure to update reports after completion of bankruptcy is just one example. Agencies might also report old debts as new and report a financial account as active when it was closed by the consumer. \nCreditors give reporting agencies inaccurate financial information about you. \nReporting agencies mixing up one persons information with anothers because of similar ( or same ) name or social security number. \nAgencies fail to follow guidelines for handling disputes. \nPulling your report for an impermissible purpose. For instance, viewing a credit report to determine if you have assets before filing certain kinds of lawsuits. \nFailing to send you notifications about your credit report or score in violation of the FCRA. \nReporting agencies providing information to unauthorized persons or businesses. \nNot all FCRA actions are the result of errors or poorly maintained files. For example, the XXXX XXXX XXXX reported about a data broker that agreed to pay {$800000.00} in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for allegations he illegally sold personal information to human resources, background screening and recruiting companies. \n\nYour Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act If youre turned down for credit or have some other reason to suspect that a credit report might have erroneously damaged you, get the name of the national credit agency that provided the report. A landlord who turned you down for bad credit or a bank that denied you a credit card will tell you which agency issued the report. \n\nNext, contact the agency and request a copy of the report. Keep in mind that if the report contains incorrect information, other agencies could be using the same information in their reports. The agency that provided the information must supply you with its report within 30 days of the denial for free. Otherwise, it can charge a fee to see a report. \n\nIf you find inaccurate or outdated information, notify the credit reporting agency in writing, explaining the error and demanding that it be immediately corrected. If the agency investigates and does nothing, and if you are still sure the report contains errors, contact the Federal Trade Commission or the state attorney generals office nearest you. \n\nIts important to know your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act : You have a right to know whats in your file. Contact the credit-rating agency that issued a report that was used to deny you credit, housing or employment. Youre entitled to a free report for any of these reasons : Information was used against you ; you are a victim of identity theft and place a fraud alert on your file ; your file contains inaccurate information that resulted from fraud ; youre on public assistance or you have been unemployed but expect to apply for work within 60 days. \nIf you have been the victim of identity theft, you are entitled to ask businesses for a copy of transaction records relating to the theft of your identity. For example, loan or credit card applications. You also may authorize law enforcement agencies to request the information. Businesses must provide it within 30 days of receiving the request. Some companies are reluctant to release this information claiming it is proprietary information or that they are protecting the consumer. However, the FCRA states that businesses are required to provide applications and business transaction records to help victims document fraudulent charges. The FTC outlines the obligations for businesses here. \nYou have a right to ask for your credit score. Credit reporting agencies provide these. In some instances, mortgage lenders will tell you your score when you apply for a loan. Also, some credit card issuers now include up-to-date scores in their monthly statements. \nYou have a right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information in your report. \nCredit reporting agencies are obliged to correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information. \nReporting agencies must not disseminate outdated negative information. \nInformation in your file is limited to those with a valid need for it. \nYou must give written consent for credit agencies to send your credit report to employers. \nIf your rights have been violated under the FCRA, you are entitled to seek actual or statutory damages, recover attorneys fees and court costs and request punitive damages. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act Violations There are several common violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, involving both the thousands of companies reporting information and the three major bureaus taking the information and assigning it to your credit report. \n\nSome of the common violations include : Furnishing and Reporting Old Information When your credit circumstances change, your credit report must be updated. If its not, thats a violation. How could some violations occur? \n\nReporting a debt as charged off, when it was settled or paid off. \nReporting late payments when your payments were timely. \nReporting old debts as new ones. \nReporting that an account was active after it was voluntarily closed by a consumer. \nFailure to report that a debt was discharged in bankruptcy. \nReporting information that is more than seven years old ( when XXXX XXXX bankruptcy notices should lapse ) or 10 years old ( XXXX XXXX bankruptcy ). \nInaccurate statement of balance due. \nFailing to have a reasonable procedure for you to report identity theft ( or supplying credit information on an account where identity theft was previously reported ). \nMixing Files Mixing files with someone else who has similar background information ( sometimes as careless as failing to distinguish the Jr. and Sr. in similar surnames ). \n\nDebt Dispute Procedures for Credit Bureaus When submitting a written dispute about the accuracy of your credit report, the credit bureaus must follow proper procedures, such as conducting an investigation, correcting inaccuracies or removing a disputed debt. Sometimes, agencies fall short in these areas. \n\nDebt Dispute Violations for Creditors Creditors are obligated to note every disputed debt and submit corrected information, stop submitting incorrect information when it has been reported, conduct an internal investigation of disputes within 30 days and provide a reasonable procedure to submit a written dispute or report of identity theft. \n\nPrivacy Violations Your credit report can be disclosed only to entities with a valid need, such as creditors, landlords, insurance providers, utility companies and employers ( with your consent ). Its also a violation to pull a credit report for an impermissible purpose, such as determining if you are collectible in a lawsuit, an employer pulling the report without permission or a creditor on a discharged debt in bankruptcy using the report to check on your current financial activity. \n\nWithholding Notices You must be given notice on the reporting, handling and use of your credit information. Violations could include : A creditor failing to notify you when it supplies negative credit information. \nA user of credit information ( prospective employer or lender ) failing to notify you of a negative decision based upon your credit report. Or that user of credit information refusing to identify the source of credit information it obtained about you. \nA creditor failing to provide your credit score if it was used as part of any credit decision. \nA creditor failing to notify you of your right to obtain a free credit report. \nIts important to be educated and know your Fair Credit Reporting Act rights. \n\nRecovering Damages for FCRA Violations The information covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act is so critical to the financial health of an individual that when violations of the FCRA occur, the victim can file suit and collect for damages. \n\nThe extent to which a victim can be compensated depends largely on whether the violation was willful or negligent. The parties responsible for possible violations include credit reporting agencies, businesses furnishing the information to credit agencies or someone using information off the credit report to make a decision about a job, or housing. \n\nWillful FCRA Violations These are the more serious violations and more highly compensated because it means the agency, business or individual was aware their actions would cause harm to you, but went ahead and did them anyway. \n\nThe types of damages that can be compensated here include : Actual damages. These are damages that can be proved because of harm caused by an action or failure to act by the agency, business or individual. There is no limit to how high an award can be. \nStatutory damages. These are damages that dont require proof, but the compensation is limited to somewhere between {$100.00} and {$1000.00}. \nPunitive damages. These are awarded to punish an agency, business or individual and deter them from violating the FCRA again. There is no limit on how much can be awarded. \nAttorney fees and court costs. You can have the cost of litigating the matter covered if you win your case. \nNegligent FCRA Violations When an agency, business or individual fails to exercise proper care or takes action that a reasonable person would not with regard to your credit information, that is negligent behavior and money damages can result. \n\nThe types of damages available are the same as with willful violations, namely actual damages ( no limit ) ; statutory damages ( usually between {$100.00} and {$1000.00} ) ; punitive damages ( no limit ) and attorney fees and court costs. \n\nFrivolous FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting bureaus have the right to terminate investigations of violations if the agency determines that the consumers complaint is frivolous or irrelevant. \n\nTypically, this happens when the consumer fails to offer sufficient information to investigate the disputed information. \n\nThey also may lose a court case if they filed suit in bad faith or to harass an agency, business or individual. If this happens, the consumer may be required to pay the attorney fees for filing bad faith papers.\n\nDeadlines Here are four key deadlines to remember when dealing with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \n\nInaccurate information must be corrected or deleted within 30 days of your dispute ( or up to 45 days if you provide additional information after submitting your written dispute ). \nBusinesses or other information furnishers must tell you about any negative information reported to the credit bureaus within 30 days. \nThe statute of limitations for filing a suit is two years after the date you discovered a violation or within five years of the date of the violation. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  The three major credit bureaus are required to provide you with one free copy of your credit report every year, if you request it. You must properly identify yourself, of course. The Web site XXXX is a prime place to obtain your free annual credit report. \n\nIn some cases, the credit bureaus also must provide you with another free copy of your credit report if : A business has denied your application or charged a higher interest rate because of information in your credit report. \nYoure unemployed and planning to look for a job within the next 60 days. \nYoure on welfare. \nYouve been a victim of identity theft ( or if your credit report contains inaccurate information because of identity theft ). \nOther Credit Reporting Agencies There is much emphasis on the three nationwide consumer reporting companies XXXX, XXXX and TransUnion but its useful to know there are other sources of consumer reporting information. \n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published a list of other companies that self-identify as consumer reporting agencies. These companies collect information and provide reports to other companies about you in the areas of credit, employment, residential rental housing, insurance and other decision-making situations. Its worth a look to determine which of the companies could be important to you. \n\nThis list, while not all-inclusive, has been independently verified by the CFPB. \n\nMeanwhile, here are the best contact numbers for the XXXX nationwide consumer reporting companies : XXXX : ( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX TransUnion : ( XXXX ) XXXX Problems with credit reporting bureaus are not unusual. Getting timely corrections on mistakes on your credit report can be difficult, but is worth pursuing. \n\nIf you have questions about the credit reporting bureaus and how information is gathered, you should contact a nonprofit credit counseling agency like XXXX and speak with a certified counselor about the problem. \n\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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX We do not lend money.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-04T03:52:02.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20877","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6924561","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-05-04T03:51:57.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Debt Dispute Procedures for Credit <em>Bureaus</em> When submitting a written dispute about the accuracy of your credit report, the credit <em>bureaus</em> must follow proper procedures, such as conducting an <em>investigation</em>, correcting inaccuracies or removing a disputed debt. Sometimes, agencies fall short in these areas."]},"sort":[7.982708,"6924561"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9153153","_score":7.2819304,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Compensation is sought in this complaint. Consumer reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to ensure credit reports are as accurate as possible under 15 USC 1681e ( b ). Consumer reporting agencies must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation if a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in a credit report, 15 USC 1681i ( 1 ) ( A ). According to the attached credit report, there are several inaccuracies, including information from XXXX  that contradicts information from XXXX and XXXX. Under section XXXX, inaccurate information means that it is factually inaccurate, as determined by the court in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As a result of my job requiring a security clearance, I have been injured, because the inaccurate, information thats been disputed on numerous occasions has not been properly investigated by XXXX and has destroyed my character, and likely would cause continuous damage to my career. For my credit report to be accurate, it must contain accurate information. XXXX is not granted the discretion to overlook legitimate disputes at its desire under any part of the law. Here, XXXX lied to the CFPB about investigating as shown by the attached credit report. Consumer reporting agencies, such as XXXX, are legally obligated by current law to follow reasonable procedures to ensure credit report accuracy. This includes conducting a reasonable investigation if a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of any information. Failing to fulfill these obligations can result in legal consequences, as inaccurate information can have significant consequences for individuals, such as the loss of job opportunities or unjust denial of credit. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( holding that liability for Willfully failing to comply with the FCRA extends not only to acts known to violate the FCRA, but also to the reckless disregard of a statutory duty. See Exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX credit Report ) also see Exhibit XXXX ( XXXX XXXX to report even my name correctly ) XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation - Date XXXX is incorrect should be XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX. Violation High Credit shows XXXX. \nXXXX. Violation No last XXXX or XXXX last payment are being recorded. \nXXXX. Violation account shows late payment in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX shows no recording of a last payment, XXXX and XXXX show a late payment in XXXX, conflicting information between the XXXX major credit reporting agencies are indisputable evidence the information is report inaccurate, in direct violation of the FCRA. \nXXXX. Violation this account has been disputed XXXX time once being with the CFPB which is now with the FDIC for violation of the Military Lending Act XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX shows {$XXXX} over the credit limit being the High Credit, which make my complaint with the CFPB about XXXX XXXX true. XXXX XXXX told the CFPB they did not violate the XXXX but {$XXXX} over the credit limit in interest charges is XXXX % interest according to the MAPR ( Military Annual Percentage ) and violate the XXXX XXXX % MAPR cap. \nXXXX. Violation account type blank. This is because XXXX understands there is no late payments on this type open-end credit plan ( credit card ). XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) late payments are prohibited by law on this type of account. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX  never investigated ; therefore, it is impossible for them to know if XXXX XXXX mailed a notice 21 days before payments was due which is mandated by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) I have never received any correspondence from XXXX XXXX, not only were they over charging in violation of the XXXX but they were also in violation of not distributing XXXX disclosures, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX shows this account 30 days late in XXXX. XXXX and XXXX show the account late in XXXX, XXXX has no data for last payment and couldnt possibly know whether the account was late or not. As XXXX XXXX and XXXX changes the due date XXXX follows and neither agency investigates. \nXXXX holds XXXX liable for willful noncompliance of not less than {$XXXX0} and not more than {$XXXX}. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Holding that the FCRA made the dissemination of materially false information in consumer reports an injury in fact ) XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX These accounts were all procured by Identity Theft, and Fraud in the inducement. XXXX XXXX took my personal information and assigned for these accounts in my name. XXXX claimed they obtained a XXXX Attorney to sign on my behalf. This is false, I have never given them any such authority. XXXX has ignored the FTC Identity Theft XXXX XXXX does not have the legal authority to omit any allegations of Identity Theft. Nor do XXXX  have the authority to play lawyer for XXXX XXXX. The law direct XXXX  to block the accounts alleged to be procured by Identity Theft. See Exhibit No. XXXX ( contract illegally signed by an unknown attorney. I did not give XXXX a XXXX of Attorney to have no Attorney sign anything for me. Also see Exhibit No. XXXX FTC Identity Theft XXXX. The XXXX requires XXXX  to block this account within XXXX business days of receiving the FTC XXXX. Violation XXXX. XXXX continues claims of relying on the creditor word in a reinvestigation after the creditor is accused of being involved is not the correct approach to attacking the legal validity of consumer debt. XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX1,68 ( 1st Cir.2008 ) 15 USC. Section 1681c-2 directs the credit bureaus to block the information alleged to be identity theft, period. A predatory lender has no problem taking someone to court and suing for a legitimate debt owed to them, even if the consumer cant afford to pay. This matter is no difference, American law allows a company to sue if someone uses the law in bad faith, the law does not permit a credit reporting agency to play Judge and jury and disregard the law, because the factual evidence does not favor the creditor, and credit reporting agency. The accounts are identity theft, and XXXX  has violated their mandate by assisting the violators causing additional harm to me. I have no problem going to XXXX XXXX showing my evidence, that it's in fact Identity Theft! There is no reason to try and evade the judicial process and undermined the constitution. \nXXXX XXXX Bank XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation account type blank. This is because XXXX understands there is no late payments on an open-end credit plan for a credit card. 15 USC 1666 ( b ) late payments are prohibited by law on this type of account.\n\n10. Account showing Open XXXX closed the account in retaliation because I filed an action against them for violation of the Military Lending Act 10USC 987. Any violation of the MLA voids a promissory note or contract in its inception, the balance must be paid back but at a 0 % interest rate the FDCPA prohibits retaliation and holds the perpetrator liable for {$XXXX} per violation. Therefore, I will file another action against XXXX. The XXXX permits compensation of not less than {$XXXX} per Illegal transaction. \nXXXX Violation XXXX  show me 30 days late in XX/XX/XXXX but reports a payment of {$XXXX} was paid on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX information conflicts. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX never investigated ; therefore, it is impossible for them to know if XXXX mailed a notice 21 days before payments was due which is mandated by 15 USC 1666 ( b ) I have never received any correspondence from XXXX, not only were they over charging in violation of the XXXX but they were also in violation of not distributing XXXX disclosures, as required by 10 USC 987.\n\n13. Violation 15 USC section 1605 - Determination of the XXXX XXXX. Under 10 USC 987 ( Military Lending Act ), XXXX was required and paid to me a refund of {$XXXX}. Finance charge is the sum equal to the sum of all payments. There have been no adjustments to my credit report of the payment made by XXXX. XXXX violated federal law for years, so the account can not have been reporting correctly if XXXX was required by law to pay me {$XXXX} (. See exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX refund check ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( holding credit reporting practices must utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential manner. Also see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Holding any inaccurate information in a consumer report supports a FCRA claim ) XXXX, XXXX and XXXX all show conflicting information on this account, this is indisputable evidence the information is being reported duplicitous. Its impossible for me to have been late in XXXX XXXX is reporting a {$XXXX} on XX/XX/XXXX. I paid {$XXXX} in XXXX after the billing cycle therefore XXXX payment was satisfied, I wouldnt have been late for XXXX until XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was paid on the due date of XX/XX/XXXX, See exhibit No XXXX XXXX payment history also See Exhibit XXXX Bank XXXX showing XXXX Payment was made long before the due date. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX Violation Type of account is Blank. \nXXXX. Violation Open date show XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the correct open date is XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX changed this date to coincide with the next violation XXXX Violation, by using my personal information to extend the terms illegally, XXXX  assisted XXXX XXXX XXXX in committing Identity Fraud by erasing Terms and showing XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX illegally tacked on {$XXXX} to a paid account using my credit report as a tool. This forced me to pay XXXX additional payments and {$XXXX}. In accordance with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am a covered member. It was a XXXX contract with a XXXX % interest rate with XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX erred in the contract because there were XXXX payments of {$XXXX, XXXX for prepaid finance charges and another for processing fees. According to the XXXX, the total sum must be calculated within the MAPR ; the addition of {$XXXX raised the XXXX to XXXX  %. See Exhibit No. XXXX The MAPR is capped at XXXX  % by the XXXX. Due to XXXX 's involvement in erasing the terms and not investigating the determination of the finance charge, per 15 USC 1605, I surrendered eight additional payments, seven  at XXXX and XXXX at XXXX, after XXXX XXXX XXXX posted this to my account to force me into default. When I paid the XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX placed a {$XXXX} charge on my account, and when I paid it, they placed another {$XXXX} to force a late payment. As a result of these illegal actions by XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, I was charged an additional {$XXXX}. XXXX XXXX XXXX reported these charges to the CFPB as additional charges and finance charges. According to XXXX XXXX XXXX, they are not subject to the XXXX federal law since they are not payday lenders. In addition to Discover, I have filed actions against XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX Bank, and XXXX XXXX. None of whom are payday loan companies. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX applies to all creditors. Due to this highly illegal action taken by XXXX and XXXX XXXX Financial, the XXXX has been increased from an already unlawful XXXX  % to XXXX  %, See exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX ). I am entitled to a refund of all payments made, and not less than {$XXXX} per illegal transaction, for a total of approximately {$XXXX} under XXXX XXXX XXXX. See Exhibit No XXXX ( XXXX ) The increased MAPR of XXXX % not only amplifies the financial burden on the covered member, but it also exacerbates the predatory nature of the loan agreement. See Exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Financial Contract XXXX and XXXX XXXX Financials unlawful actions violated federal laws but have also caused significant harm to a federally covered member 's economic well-being. XXXX XXXX financial has a tirade of Actions against them for stealing and deceitful, including cold callous and indescribably cruel predatory lending scandals. A pending XXXX mandate by the CFPB, class action XXXX for violating the military lending act, see XXXX XXXX XXXX Main XXXX. XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX knows the law well enough to violate it, and egregiously challenge a consumers ability to file an action against them. Therefore, their continuous violations validate the continuous actions being filed against them. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX have evidence in their system this loan originated on XX/XX/XXXX they have in their system that the loan contract was for 60 months. XXXX  deleted the terms to assist XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX to extract the funds. \nXXXX, Last report, last active, and last payment all show XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Violation Payment history shows an XXXX for XXXX. This Is indisputable evidence XXXX  was fully aware of what they were doing failing to investigate. \nXXXX. Violation this account was not only reported to the CFPB but also report to the FTC as Identity Theft XXXX ignored the FTC XXXX  which the FCRA requires XXXX to block the accounts within XXXX working days. Id Theft is defined as use of someone personal information for illegal financial gain. \nXXXX. Violation Upstart Reported as ID Theft, XXXX ignored the FTC XXXX XXXX No. XXXX This account was reported as Identity Theft. I received an email on XX/XX/XXXX from Upstart stating they would not handle my Identity Theft issue and a bank named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made the loan to me. The number ( XXXX ) XXXX was used to contact this bank on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. Using my SSN, I asked the XXXX to check twice, and she replied that they had no record of me having received a loan. After waiting an hour, I called back, and this time I got a bank representative, who told me that XXXX was XXXX of their brokers, but no loan had been issued to me by their bank. XXXX ignored the Identity Theft XXXX and did not investigate. The Identity Theft XXXXt is a crucial document in the investigation process as it serves as a formal declaration from the victim stating that their identity has been stolen. It helps to establish a clear record of the incident and provides important information for law enforcement and other entities involved in resolving the case. By disregarding the Identity Theft XXXX and failing to conduct a thorough investigation, XXXX  not only violated legal requirements but also undermined the victim 's efforts to rectify the situation and seek justice. \nXXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation account shows 30 days late for XX/XX/XXXX all three credit bureaus have conflicting information on a late payment, indisputable evidence the information is inaccurate. XXXX directed me to contact the credit bureaus who were reporting the incorrect information ; therefore, I closed the account. \nXXXX. Violation Credit bureaus play a crucial role in safeguarding consumer credit information by collecting and maintaining credit data from various sources. Their responsibility is to accurately report this information to lenders and other authorized parties. However, when credit bureaus neglect to thoroughly investigate and verify the accuracy of a consumer 's credit report within the allotted time, it can result in serious damage to the individual 's reputation and financial well-being. \nXXXX. Violation Account Type is blank, this was a XXXX credit card issued by XXXX XXXX Bank, This is because XXXX understands there is no late payments on this type open-end credit plan. 15 USC 1666 ( b ) late payments are prohibited by law on this type of account. Therefore they deleted the account type. \n25. Violation Date last Activity Blank 26. Violation Date last Payment Blank 27. Violation XXXX  never investigated the XXXX credit card ; therefore, it is impossible for them to know if XXXX mailed a notice 21 days before payments was due which is mandated by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ), I have never received any correspondence from XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX. Violation Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( FCRA ) XXXX  and the creditors were informed by me of the alleged ID theft, XXXX ignored the FTC XXXXt XXXX. Violation Section XXXX ( b ) XXXX is required by law to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. When XXXX fails to even conduct a preliminary investigation the law and my rights have been violated. \nXXXX. Violation Section 611 ( c ) of FCRA provides, whenever a statement of dispute is filed the consumer reporting agency shall, in any subsequent consumer report containing the information in question, clearly note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer statement or a clear and accurate codification or summery thereof. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX has been disputing several time, numerous inaccuracies remain and no information in question assigned to the account. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has been disputing several time, numerous inaccuracies remain and no information in question assigned to the account XXXX. Violation account XXXX XXXX XXXX has no statement of dispute or Identity Theft XXXX. Violation FCRA section 605B ( 15 USC 1681c-2 violation A consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft not later than XXXX business days. XXXX has failed to follow this law because they know the truth but feel dedicated to protecting the unlawful acts by using their position to hold someone credit report as collateral to ensure the unlawful payments are made. \nXXXX XXXX violation XXXX X accounts reported by FTC XXXX as ID Theft XXXX  XXXX the report. The allege creditor also ignored the report. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Solutions, XXXX ( Holding concrete harm XXXX be shown by FCRA violation that causes the consumer to suffer Harm which XXXX sought to prevent when it enacted the FCRA ) BLUF : If XXXX believes the creditor, they're protecting is right in signing fraudulent loans in my name through an unknown attorney, and the law does not see this as Identity Theft, Or XXXX contribution to the theft of money by XXXX Main Financial. It would be appropriate for XXXX to serve as a witness for these creditors in XXXX XXXX. The FCRA requires XXXX to comply, and if they refuse, a jury can decide what should be done. A remedy to a factual dispute has already been made available to both parties by XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-02T06:39:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77389","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9153153","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-06-02T06:18:44.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, when credit <em>bureaus</em> neglect to thoroughly <em>investigate</em> and verify the accuracy of a consumer 's credit report within the allotted time, it can result in <em>serious</em> damage to the individual 's reputation and financial well-being. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[7.2819304,"9153153"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6296648","_score":5.928282,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB)\n1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States\nThis is to complain against the Truist Financial Corporation\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX   I wish to practice my right as a customer of Truist Financial Corporation to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX  with Truist Financial Corporation.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Truist Financial Corporation respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Truist Financial Corporation to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money, and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Truist Financial Corporation, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct from management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\n\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX  which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Truist Financial account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Truist Financial Corporation did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Truist Financial Corporations custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Truist Financial Corporation promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Truist Financial Corporation was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Truist Financial Corporation owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Truist Financial Corporation did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Truist Financial Corporations conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Truist Financial Corporation has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Truist Financial Corporation must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Truist Financial Corporation did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past.\n \nTruist Financial Corporations Position:\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: Based on our investigation, Truist denies your claim for reimbursement because our investigation reveals the activity/transaction(s) was authorized.\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: You have advised that you were a victim of fraud... The information was keyed according to the Outgoing Wire Transfer Request Agreement, which you confirmed and signed.\nRefuting Truist Financial Corporations arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nTruist Financial Corporations position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Truist Financial Corporations view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely on) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Truist Financial Corporation morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Truist Financial Corporation encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Truist Financial Corporation.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Truist Financial Corporation carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Truist Financial Corporation, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\nIt is Truist Financial Corporation here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Truist Financial Corporation adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Truist Financial Corporation that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Truist Financial Corporations capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, Truist Financial Corporations indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions\n  \nand capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Truist Financial Corporation has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nTruist Financial Corporation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple chequebooks;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation\n  \nto the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nTruist Financial Corporation is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability  Truist Financial Corporation adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Truist Financial Corporation in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Truist Financial Corporations business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Truist Financial Corporations non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable\n \nconsumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Truist Financial Corporation pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX  XXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 9\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTruist Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC\nRe: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept. Dear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care has been breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence and/or have not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages that I have suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall serve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you have engaged in, is a pattern or a practice of wrongful and negligent conduct which has enabled the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX  (the Company), with the design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services,\" all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients, through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains.\n Money was transferred from my account via bank wire, credit card, debit card and through intermediaries named \"XXXX XXXX in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XXXX XXXX XXXX) 1\n    \nPage 2 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation, whether by raising chargeback and recall in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXXusd!\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm, and insist that you reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums while knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money that they had entrusted to it. The overall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced and naive, in pursuit of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered the fraud that was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as\n 2\n\nPage 3 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nwithholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial products are often abstract and complex, theres no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of investors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies, know-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of their customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive consumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme and therefore by their nature are jointly  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for investment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the investments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged thus causing significant economic damage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions; and the fraudulent transactions the Company perpetrated were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated which would have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to their crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include, but are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and malicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating from various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts and crypto currency wallets in multiple countries and used them through their accomplices from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated through\n 3\n\nPage 4 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nlegitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent\nnames, credentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name, officially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being conducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and furthermore, the call center, marketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden entities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum of financial maneuvers, is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a license and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require registration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g., according to XXXX XXXX)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data (e.g.: the manufacture of false charts). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that each client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the existence of the trades was fabricated. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using it to purchase various luxurious, non- essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing unrealistic returns/yields.\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. The Company was trading on my behalf (use of remote control of my computer).\n11. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n12. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data\nrepresenting the percentage of total client losses at the company.\n13. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n14. The Company did not read me the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n15. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my\nhealth.\n4\n\nPage 5 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nArmed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me, until I transferred all my savings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square and honorable business dealings along with honesty, to maliciously take advantage of my trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to conclude that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation of a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the XXXX XXXX  well established in the case of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nThe XXXX XXXX  requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing the instructions of a client. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the funds of the client.\"\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution is able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution should seek further information and/or documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it has become glaringly obvious to me that at best, no adequate\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    5\n\nPage 6 of 9 JXXXX XXXX XXXX\ninformation and/or documentation were sought by your organization, and at worst, no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable individual would make,\" it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment instruction is made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank is liable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on and suspended transactions until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transactions were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I am a fraud victim. (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [3].\nA financial institution would never be as reckless with its own assets as has been the case with my assets, and if you had treated my assets as though they were your own, this would not have been made possible. The debits made from my account should be reversed as a result of your failure to take proactive measures to protect it, just as you would do if your own assets were in a similar state of peril. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about an individual that adversely affects their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be liable to more than one regulatoXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  More often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly, to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence. A plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-20T18:39:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29681","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6296648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-12-08T23:55:35.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer Protection Financial <em>Bureau</em> (CFPB)\n1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States\nThis is to complain <em>against</em> the Truist Financial Corporation\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX   I wish to practice my right as a customer of Truist Financial Corporation to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial <em>investigation</em> to amicably settle my dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX  with Truist Financial"]},"sort":[5.928282,"6296648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858508","_score":5.421339,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858508","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:57:33.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This indicates that these <em>bureaus</em> are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute <em>investigation</em> requirements.\n\nSuch an <em>allegation</em> from the CFPB is <em>serious</em> ; if TransUnion ( or any <em>bureau</em> ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[5.421339,"12858508"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858504","_score":5.421339,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858504","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:57:33.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This indicates that these <em>bureaus</em> are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute <em>investigation</em> requirements.\n\nSuch an <em>allegation</em> from the CFPB is <em>serious</em> ; if TransUnion ( or any <em>bureau</em> ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[5.421339,"12858504"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858035","_score":5.41162,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858035","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:45:23.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This indicates that these <em>bureaus</em> are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute <em>investigation</em> requirements.\n\nSuch an <em>allegation</em> from the CFPB is <em>serious</em> ; if TransUnion ( or any <em>bureau</em> ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[5.41162,"12858035"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":29,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":29}]}},"product":{"doc_count":29,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":15}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":1},{"key":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":29,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened to arrest you or take you to jail if you do not pay","doc_count":1},{"key":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":"Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":29,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":29}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":29,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":21},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":8}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":29,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":29}]}},"company":{"doc_count":29,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":7},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"CCF Intermediate Holdings LLC","doc_count":3},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AmeriCash Holding LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CURO Intermediate Holdings","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"United Shore Financial Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":29,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"GA","doc_count":4},{"key":"MN","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"ID","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"KS","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":29,"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":13},{"key":"Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":29,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[5.411706,"12858035"]}}}